Orthodoxy 


IN   THE 


Christian 


Edward  H 


ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY   IN   THE 
CHRISTIAN    CHURCH. 


TEN     LECTURES 


'jf  AMERICAN      « 

ORTHODOXY    AND   (pE?®ff 


CHRISTIAN    CHURCH. 


BY 

EDWARD    H.    HALL. 

'I 


THIRD   EDITION. 


UH I  TEE  SIT  7] 

<^^===S^=^^BO  S TO N  : 

AMERICAN    UNITARIAN    ASSOCIATION. 
i8qi. 


ST/3J7 
#3 


Copyright,  1883, 
By  American  Unitarian  Association. 


<£am6rtfcge: 

PRINTED    BY    JOHN    WILSON    AND    SON, 
UNIVERSITY    PRESS. 


TO 


THE  SECOND   PARISH   OF  WORCESTER, 

THESE     LECTURES,     FIRST     WRITTEN      IN      THEIR      SERVICE, 
ARE    NOW    AFFECTIONATELY    INSCRIBED. 


CONTENTS. 


•  LECTURE    I. 

PAGR 

Paul  and  the  Apostles     ." i 

II. 
Views  of  the  Early  Church  concerning  Christ      21 

III. 
Arianism  and  the  Council  of  Nioea     ....      48 

IV. 
Controversy  concerning  the  two  Natures  .    .      67 

V. 
The  Pelagian  Controversy 87 

VI. 

The  Catholic  Church 108 

VII. 
The  Lutheran  Heresy 131 

VIII. 
Other  Trinitarian  Heresies 162 

IX. 
Unitarian  Heresies 191 

X. 

Religion  and  Dogma 220 


o^y*  op  THE 

'kititbiisitt; 

ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY 


IN   THE 


CHRISTIAN    CHURCH. 


PAUL  AND   THE   APOSTLES. 

*  I  ^HE  terms  Orthodoxy  and  Heresy  are  so  familiarly 
■*-  used  that  it  seems  to  me  worth  while  to  attach  to 
them,  if  possible,  a  definite  signification.  Have  they  any 
exact  meaning  in  relation  to  Christianity,  and  if  so,  what 
is  it?  What  is  Christian  Orthodoxy,  and  what  phases  of 
belief  come  legitimately  under  the  head  of  heresy?  To 
answer  these  questions  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  course 
of  lectures.  If  in  accomplishing  this  purposfc  the  lectures 
shall  also  aid  in  answering  the  further  question,  Is  Ortho- 
doxy of  faith  essential  to  Christianity?  or  the  question 
larger  still,  Is  dogma  a  necessary  part  of  religion  ?  the  en- 
tire object  of  the  course,  as  it  now  lies  in  my  mind,  will  be 
attained. 

The  first  point  to  be  made,  in  carrying  out  this  plan,  is 
to  determine  the  meaning  of  Christian  Orthodoxy.  The 
term  heresy,  as  commonly  used,  has  no  meaning  unless 
the  religion  in  question  has  an  established  and  authorized 


2  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

system  of  doctrines.  Had  Christianity  such  a  system  at 
the  beginning,  and  if  not,  when  did  it  form  one  ? 

To  determine  this  point,  we  must  look  first  at  the  very 
beginnings  of  the  Christian  Church.  I  invite  you  this 
evening,  therefore,  to  glance  with  me  at  Christianity  as 
held  by  its  first  disciples  ;  by  the  Apostles  of  Christ  them- 
selves. Here  are  the  historical  records ;  very  scanty  it  is 
true,  and  often  vaguest  where  we  should  wish  to  have 
them  most  exact  \  and  yet,  scanty  as  they  are,  containing 
far  more  than  is  commonly  discovered.  I  propose  to 
look  carefully,  to-night,  at  the  pages  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  will  do  my  best  neither  to  put  anything  of  my 
own  into  them,  nor  to  extort  from  them  any  meaning 
which  is  not  fairly  theirs. 

Exactly  how  soon  after  the  death  of  Jesus  the  Apostles 
gathered  again  at  Jerusalem,  we  cannot  tell ;  for  all  the 
memories  of  this  period,  as  is  quite  natural,  were  vague 
and  confused,  and  the  dates  in  the  Book  of  Acts  are  as 
uncertain  as  the  events  described  are  misty  and  phantom- 
like. No  better  illustration  could  be  given  of  the  state  of 
mind  common  to  all  who.  passed  through  the  exciting 
scenes  of  Christ's  seizure  and  crucifixion,  than  the  con- 
flicting statements  as  to  the  time  which  elapsed  before 
what  is  called  his  ascension.  This  event,  unknown  to 
Matthew,  to  John,  and  to  Mark,1  but  mentioned  twice  by 
the  writer  of  Luke  and  Acts,  is  described  in  the  one  case 2 
as  happening  within  one  day  of  the  Resurrection,  in  the 

1  The  last  twelve  verses  of  Mark's  Gospel  are  commonly  pro- 
nounced spurious.  2  Luke  xxiv.  I,  13,  36,  51. 


PAUL  AND   THE   APOSTLES.  3 

other,1  as  happening  after  forty  days.  In  other  words, 
when  these  two  books  were  written,  it  was  already  for- 
gotten whether  Jesus  was  with  his  disciples,  after  his  cruci- 
fixion, for  twenty-four  hours  or  for  more  than  a  month. 

The  one  thing  which  is  clear  in  the  early  chapters  of 
Acts  is,  that  the  Apostles  were  gathered  in  Jerusalem,  and 
were  living  in  daily  expectation  of  their  Master's  return. 
The  crucifixion,  as  you  know,  had  astonished  and  scattered 
them.  It  brought  not  only  terror  but  despair;  for  it 
seemed,  at  the  moment,  a  final  blow  to  all  their  hopes. 
So  firmly  rooted  in  their  minds  was  the  belief,  long  tra- 
ditional among  the  Jews,  that  their  Messiah  would  not 
die,  but  was  to  re-establish  on  earth  the  Kingdom  of  Is- 
rael, and  subject  all  nations  to  Jehovah's  sway,  that  their 
first  feeling  was  that  they  had  been  wholly  deceived. 
"We  trusted  it  had  been  he,"  they  said,  "which  should 
have  redeemed  Israel." 2  The  crucifixion  thus  forced  upon 
them  this  stern  alternative ;  either  Jesus  was  not  the 
Messiah,  or  he  had  not  really  or  finally  died,  but  had 
passed  up  directly  into  heaven,  to  return  as  he  had  prom- 
ised, "  before  that  generation  should  pass,"  to  establish 
himself  on  earth  as  king. 

Which  side  of  this  alternative  they  chose,  we  all  know. 
Their  faith  in  Jesus  proved  stronger  than  all  their  fore- 
bodings, and  they  came  together  again  in  Jerusalem,  as  he 
had  bidden  them,  to  await  his  speedy  coming.  The  state 
of  feeling  with  which  they  met  appears  plainly  from  an 
examination  of  the  language  which  all  the  writers  of  this 
1  Acts  i.  3.  2  Luke  xxiv.  21. 


4  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

period  employ.  With  the  idea  of  heaven  then  prevailing 
as  a  local  spot  above  the  clouds,  inhabited  by  God  and 
his  angels,  it  was  easy  for  the  Jew  to  conceive  of  Jesus  as 
having  been  snatched  up  into  the  skies,  where  he  would 
sit  "  at  the  right  hand  of  God,"  1  until  the  time  arrived 
when  he  should  come  down  "  in  like  manner  as  they  had 
seen  him  go  up  into  heaven," 2  and  mount  the  Messiah's 
throne.  Everything  indicates  this  expectation.  Christ's 
coming  is  not  spoken  of  in  these  pages  as  an  event  which 
has  already  occurred,  but  as  something  still  to  be.  The 
tense  is  not  past  but  future.  The  Messiah  has  not 
"come,"  he  "is  coming."  "The  Lord  shall  send  Jesus 
Christ  which  was  preached  unto  you,"  says  Peter  in  heal- 
ing the  lame  man.8  Such  expressions  as  "  Waiting  for 
the  coming  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  "  Waiting  for  the  Lord," 
"The  coming  of  the  Lord  draweth  nigh,"  "We  which  are 
alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord,"  are  con- 
stantly met  in  all  the  writings  of  this  age.  It  is  an  hour  of 
intense  expectancy,  with  all  the  high-wrought  feeling  and 
excited  imagination  which  always  characterize  such  hours. 
They  are  waiting  for  their  Lord.  Every  unusual  event 
seems  startling,  providential,  miraculous.  Every  stir  in 
the  elements  might  be  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
which  he  had  promised ;  every  breath  of  wind,  his  com- 
ing down  from  the  skies  whither  he  had  ascended. 

The  religious  organization  of  this  little  band  of  primitive 
Christians  seems  to  have  corresponded  wholly  with  their 
religious  faith.     Various  sects  have  been  at  pains  to  trace 
1  Acts  ii.  33.  2  Acts  i.  1 1.  3  Acts  iii.  20. 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  5 

back  their  ecclesiastical  forms  to  these  early  days.  In 
reality,  I  suppose,  the  simplest  organization  ever  thought 
of  in  our  own  times  is  far  too  complicated  for  the  Apos- 
tolic age.  Indeed,  why  should  we  look  for  any  distinct 
organization  at  all?  "The  time  was  short."  "The  day 
of  the  Lord  was  to  come  as  a  thief  in  the  night."  It 
might  be  a  few  years,  it  might  be  a  few  months,  it  might 
be  but  a  few  days,  ere  the  Son  of  Man  should  appear. 
What  motive  was  there  then  for  establishing  special  rites, 
or  ecclesiastical  offices,  or  sacred  places,  or  holy  days  ? 

Plainly,  nothing  of  the  kind  was  done.  Judging  at  least 
from  the  evidence  before  us,  the  disciples  of  Jesus  contin- 
ued as  before,  living  and  worshipping  among  their  fellow 
Jews,  sharing  the  universal  expectation  of  a  Messiah,  dif- 
fering from  their  fellow-countrymen  only  in  considering 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  the  Messiah,  and  cherishing  his  glorious 
image  in  their  hearts.  There  is  no  proof  that  as  yet,  or 
until  they  were  forced  to  do  so,  they  separated  themselves 
openly  from  other  Jews,  or  showed  any  disposition  to  for- 
sake Jewish  observances.  Apparently,  they  considered 
themselves  the  true  Israel.  They  still  read  and  quoted 
the  Mosaic  Scriptures,  they  still  baptized  their  converts 
into  the  Jewish  Church,  they  were  found  "  daily  with  one 
accord  in  the  Temple," 1  they  observed  the  Jewish  Pente- 
cost,2 Passover,3  and  Sabbath,4  they  performed  Jewish 
vows,5  they  were  faithful  to  the  Jewish  hours  of  prayer,6 
they  "abstained  from  meats  offered  to   idols,  and  from 

1  Acts  ii.  46.  2  Acts  ii.  1 ;  xa.  16;  I  Cor.  xvi.  8.  3  Acts  xx.  6. 
4  Acts  xiii.  42,  44 ;  xvi.  13  ;  xvii.  2 ;  xviii.  4.  5  Acts  xviii.  18 ;  xxi. 
23-26.    0  Acts  iii.  1 ;  x.  9. 


6  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

blood,  and  from  things  strangled," 1  they  surrendered  with 
great  reluctance,  and  only  in  course  of  time,  the  rite  of 
circumcision.2  They  were  as  yet  a  family  rather  than  a 
church;  a  domestic,  not  an  ecclesiastical  group.  "All 
that  believed  were  together,  and  had  all  things  common  ; " 
"breaking  bread  from  house  to  house,  they  did  eat  their 
meat  with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart."3  In  later 
times,  when  they  had  ceased  longer  to  expect  Jesus,  and 
began  only  to  remember  him,  this  simple  ceremony  of  the 
"breaking  of  bread"  assumed  a  memorial  form,  and  be 
came,  after  a  few  years,  the  Lord's  Supper.  But  not  at 
first.  For  a  time  his  followers  were  wholly  absorbed  in 
the  hope  of  his  coming ;  they  were  looking  forward,  not 
backward.  They  were  Jews  still,  with  a  fine  expectation 
in  their  souls. 

Such  was  primitive  Christianity.  Such  for  the  first  eight 
or  ten  years  of  its  existence,  at  least,  was  the  Christian 
Church,  if  Church  it  could  yet  be  called.  Nor  was  its 
doctrinal  faith  less  primitive  than  its  form.  No  one  who 
reads  the  accounts  of  the  first  preaching  of  the  Apostles, 
and  notices  the  appeals  by  which  they  won  their  first  con- 
verts, can  fail  to  be  struck  by  the  limited  range  and  ex- 
treme simplicity  of  their  discourses.  Of  the  higher  thought 
which  Jesus  had  spoken,  no  hint  is  to  be  found.  Their 
one  consideration  seems  to  have  been,  not  the  future 
growth  of  Christianity,  but  the  immediate  change  which 
was  impending.  The  single  theme,  reiterated  in  many 
forms,  which  seems  to  have  covered  the  whole  ground  of 
1  Acts  xv.  29.    2  Acts  xv.  1 ;  xvi.  3;  Gal.  vi.  12.    8  Acts  ii.  44,  46. 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  7 

their  ministry,  was  this  :  Jesus  is  the  Messiah  ;  he  will  speed- 
ily come  ;  repent  and  be  baptized  in  his  name. 

But  it  was  impossible  for  this  state  of  things  to  last. 
Narrow  and  unspiritual  as  were  these  first  teachings,  still 
the  higher  thought  was  there,  for  it  had  certainly  been 
spoken,  and  was  waiting  then  for  further  utterance.  Not 
every  one  had  forgotten  it,  or  failed  to  comprehend  it. 
Among  those  who  joined  in  the  Jewish  ceremonials,  some 
there  must  have  been  who  were  carrying  in  their  hearts 
those  better  words,  "  The  sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and 
not  man  for  the  sabbath,"  "Ye  hypocrites,  who  pay  tithe 
of  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,"  "  Not  every  one  that  saith 
unto  me  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven ;  but  he  that  doeth  the  will  of  my  Father  which  is 
in  heaven."  It  was  only  necessary  for  some  soul  to  ap- 
pear, responsive  to  these  nobler  utterances,  and  conscious 
of  their  inconsistency  with  the  Mosaic  faith,  and  the  little 
Christian  community  would  learn  a  larger  Gospel.  It  was 
simply  a  question  of  time  when  the  new  truth  should  come 
to  an  open  break  with  the  old. 

The  first  warning  note  of  the  inevitable  conflict  came 
from  a  quarter  whence  one  would  least  have  expected  it. 
While  Peter,  John,  and  James  preached  their  gospel  among 
the  Jews  without  exciting  hostility,  the  first  serious  offence 
seems  to  have  been  caused  by  one  of  a  little  group  of  sub- 
ordinates who  had  been  appointed,  somewhat  contemptu- 
ously perhaps,  to  "serve  the  tables,"  and  wait  upon  the 
widows,  while  the  Twelve  gave  themselves  "to  prayer  and 
the  ministry  of  the  word." l  Lowly  as  was  their  office,  one 
1  Acts  vi.  2-4. 


8  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

among  their  number  rose  at  once  above  the  very  Apostles 
who  had  so  haughtily  assigned  them  their  work. 

The  fate  of  Stephen,  the  first  martyr,  is  a  familiar  story  ; 
I  ask  you  now  simply  to  notice  the  exact  cause  of  his 
violent  death.  That  he  preached  Jesus  as  the  Messiah 
could  not  have  been  his  offence  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jews,  for  Peter  and  John  had  long  taught  this  without 
being  stoned.  The  charge  against  him  was  a  more 
serious  one,  — "  We  have  heard  him  say  that  this  Jesus 
of  Nazareth  shall  destroy  this  place,  and  shall  change 
the  customs  which  Moses  delivered  us."1  In  other 
words,  Stephen  was  the  first  to  be  put  to  death,  because 
he  was  the  first  to  catch  the  more  spiritual  purport  of 
Jesus'  words,  and  set  them  in  contrast  with  the  Mosaic 
ceremonial.  Quoting,  perhaps,  such  sayings  as  these, 
"  In  this  place  is  one  greater  than  the  Temple ; " 2  quot- 
ing from  their  own  Scriptures,  M  The  most  High  dwelleth 
not  in  temples  made  with  hands,"3  —  Stephen,  like  his 
Master  before  him,4  was  charged  with  blasphemy,  and 
when  he  bravely  refused  to  retract,  he  was  stoned  to  death 
for  having  spoken  "  against  Moses  and  against  God." 

Stephen's  death,  however,  beautiful  and  heroic  as  it 
was,  gains  its  chief  significance  from  the  consequences 
to  which  it  led,  and  the  impression  which  its  heroism 
seems  to  have  made  upon  one  greater  than  himself,  or 
one  at  least  with  larger  opportunity  to  carry  forward  the 
truth  for  which  Stephen  had  become  a  martyr.  This  is 
not  the  place  for  a  full  account  of  Paul's  ministry;  yet 

1  Acts  vi.  14.     2  Matt.  xii.  6.      8  Acts  vii.  48.     4  Matt.  xxvi.  61. 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  9 

it  is  important  to  notice,  just  at  this  point,  the  exact  cir- 
cumstances of  his  actual  entrance  as  a  teacher  and  worker 
into  the  Christian  community. 

PauPs  apostleship  by  no .  means  began  immediately 
upon  his  conversion,  nor  was  his  conversion  itself  the  in- 
stantaneous thing  it  might  at  first  appear.  Like  all  genu- 
ine spiritual  changes,  it  was  evidently  a  gradual  process, 
culminating,  no  doubt,  in  one  startling  experience,  but 
prepared  for,  as  we  have  seen,  by  the  incidents  of  Ste 
phen's  death  as  well  as  by  a  general  acquaintance  with 
Christian  teachings,  and  followed  by  a  long  period  of  ap- 
parent solitude  and  reflection.  According  to  his  own 
account,  he  first  spent  three  years  in  Arabia  and  Damas- 
cus, either  feeling  as  yet  no  call  to  engage  openly  in  the 
new  cause,  or  not  wholly  at  home  in  it,  went  then  to  Jeru- 
salem to  consult  with  the  leading  Christian  Apostles,  met 
with  no  warm  welcome  from  them,  but  only  with  suspicion 
and  fear,  and  finally  retired,  as  if  in  discouragement,  to 
his  native  Tarsus,  where  he  remained  until  certain  new 
developments  brought  him  into  active  service.1 

After  the  death  of  Stephen,  the  little  community  at 
Jerusalem  became  naturally  the  object  of  greater  suspicion 
on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  and  finally  of  a  general  perse- 
cution, which  does  not  seem  to  have  affected  the  Apostles, 
but  which  drove  many  of  the  more  zealous  members 
abroad  "  throughout  the  regions  of  Judea  and  Samaria,"  2 
"as  far  as  Cyprus  and  Antioch."3  But  here  arose  at 
once  a  new  perplexity.     Hitherto,  as  we  have  seen,  the 

1  Gal.  i.  17-18  ;  Acts  ix.  26-30.     2  Acts  viii.  1.     3  Acts  xi.  19. 


IO  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

whole  movement  had  been  carried  on  within  the  Jewish 
church,  nor  did  any  of  the  Apostles  seem  to  have  con- 
sidered that  their  mission  extended  beyond  it.  Recalling, 
perhaps,  certain  words  of  Jesus  himself,1  they  evidently 
regarded  the  coming  of  the  Messiah  as  in  consequence 
of  the  promise  made  to  the  chosen  people,  and  therefore 
as  concerning  them  alone.  Acting  on  this  principle  when 
they  first  left  Jerusalem,  they  soon  found  themselves,  for 
the  first  time,  face  to  face  with  Greeks,  and  some  of  their 
number  ventured  to  preach  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  offer  the 
blessings  of  his  Messiahship,  even  to  them.2  At  once 
rumors  of  this  bold  proceeding  reached  the  Apostles  at 
Jerusalem,  to  whom  the  action  seemed  so  grave  and  the 
moment  so  critical,  that  Barnabas,  one  of  the  most  trust- 
worthy of  their  followers,  was  instantly  sent  to  Antioch, 
where  the  new  movement  had  begun,  to  take  the  matter 
in  charge.  Barnabas  in  turn,  with  this  new  and  serious 
responsibility  upon  him,  seems  to  have  bethought  himself 
of  the  zealous  convert,  whom  the  Apostles  had  regarded 
with  so  much  suspicion,  but  whose  worth  he  had  recog- 
nized from  the  first,  and  who  was  then  in  retirement  at 
Tarsus.  Saul,  visited  thus  in  person  by  Barnabas,  and 
called  to  the  new  field  which  had  opened  outside  of 
Jerusalem,  entered  willingly  upon  the  work,  and  found 
himself,  as  events  proved,  exactly  where  his  help  was 
most  needed,  and  his  powers  could  be  turned  to  best 
account.8    His  special  mission  was  obvious  at  once. 

1  Matt.  x.  5,  6 ;  xv.  24.    2  Acts  xi.  19,  20.    3  Acts  xi.  22-26 ;  ix. 
26,  27. 


PAUL  AND   THE  APOSTLES.  U 

But  few  years  passed  after  Saul's  entrance  upon  his 
labors,  before  an  event  occurred  which  proved  how  well 
Barnabas  had  chosen,  and  how  sorely  the  Apostles  needed 
precisely  the  element  among  them  which  the  new  convert 
brought.  The  new  experiment  which  had  been  initiated 
at  Antioch,  of  preaching  the  gospel  to  Gentile  as  well  as 
Jew,  and  inviting  both  to  enter  the  heavenly  kingdom  on 
equal  terms,  was  by  no  means  regarded  with  universal  favor. 
On  the  contrary,  it  was  held  by  many  to  be  subversive,  as 
it  really  was,  of  the  ancient  faith,  and  caused  nowhere 
greater  scandal  than  in  Jerusalem,  in  the  sacred  circle  of 
the  Apostles  themselves.  Alarmed  at  the  rumors  which 
reached  their  ears,  they  sent  messengers  to  Antioch,  who 
were  dismayed  at  discovering  a  far  greater  looseness 
and  freedom  than  they  had  supposed.  They  even  found 
that  converts  were  admitted  into  the  church  without  being 
circumcised ;  and  felt  called  upon  to  tell  the  followers  of 
Barnabas  and  Paul,  "  Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the 
manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  1 

The  council  at  Jerusalem  which  resulted  from  this  visit, 
and  which  is  so  differently  narrated  in  Acts  xv.  and  Gala- 
tians  ii.^was  evidently  the  most  important  event  in  the  early 
history  of  the  church  ;  and  the  singular  asperity  with  which 
it  was  conducted  shows  how  serious  a  point  was  involved 
in  its  discussions.     Paul  himself,  in  writing  of  it  to  the 

1  Acts  xv.  i. 

2  The  discrepancy  between  these  two  accounts  has  long  been 
familiar  to  Bible  students,  and  has  defied  all  attempts  at  reconcili- 
ation. In  choosing  between  them  we  are  justified,  of  course,  in 
following  the  statements  of  Paul  himself. 


12  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Galatians,  about  sixteen  years  later,  betrays  plainly  enough, 
by  the  exceptional  severity  and  sarcasm  of  his  tone,  how 
deeply  he  had  been  wounded,  and  how  angry  an  opposi- 
tion he  had  encountered  at  the  hands  of  the  Jerusalem 
Apostles.  The  messengers  whom  they  had  sent  to  An- 
tioch  to  examine  into  its  affairs,  he  calls  "  false  brethren, 
unawares  brought  in,  who  came  in  privily  to  spy  out  our 
liberty  which  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that  they  might 
bring  us  into  bondage  ;  "  l  speaking  of  the  Apostles  them- 
selves, he  says  "  those  who  seemed  to  be  somewhat  (what- 
soever they  were,  it  maketh  no  matter  to  me :  God  ac- 
cepteth  no  man's  person),"  "James,  Cephas,  and  John, 
who  seemed  to  be  pillars  ,• " 2  while  throughout  the  whole 
account  Paul  is  anxious  to  show  the  great  difference  of 
opinion  between  himself  and  the  Apostles,  and  to  prove 
how  little  he  allowed  himself  to  be  influenced  by  them. 

The  meaning  of  all  this  is  unmistakable,  and  the  attitude 
in  which  Paul  appears  is  admirable.  Nothing  in  his  whole 
career  brings  out  so  clearly  the  strength  of  his  character, 
or  the  intensity  and  persistency  of  his  purpose,  as  this  first 
great  triumph  over  official  blindness  and  bigotry.  The 
picture  is  a  striking  one.  On  the  one  side  were  Peter, 
James,  and  John,  the  personal  followers  of  Jesus,  who  had 
heard  his  words  and  been  eye-witnesses  of  his  career,  who 
had  been  chosen  to  represent  him  and  still  bore  un- 
challenged the  sacred  title  of  "Apostles,"  yet  who  honestly 
believed  that  the  gospel  was  to  the  Jews,  that  every  one 
who  accepted  it  must  accept  also  the  whole  Law  of  Moses, 
i  Gal.  ii.  4.  2  Gal.  ii.  6-9- 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  1 3 

that  the  rite  of  circumcision,  the  eating  of  certain  meats, 
and  the  observance  of  Sabbaths  and  feast  days,  as  being 
part  of  the  Law  of  Moses,  were  as  incumbent  upon  the 
follower  of  Christ  as  upon  the  Jew  himself,  and  that  to 
admit  Gentiles  into  the  kingdom  on  equal  terms  was  to 
falsify  all  the  promises  of  the  Fathers.  On  the  other  side 
appeared  this  new  and  almost  unknown  convert,  but  just 
now  their  malignant  persecutor;  this  recent  comer  into 
their  ranks,  who  had  never  heard  or  seen  Jesus,  who 
claimed  no  official  authority  whatever,  yet  who  dared 
boldly  to  dispute  their  word  and  deny  their  interpretation 
of  the  new  faith,  to  challenge  the  sanctity  of  the  Mosaic 
Law,  and  claim  exemption  from  its  "  bondage  "  in  the 
name  of  Christ,  to  take  open  ground  against  the  necessity 
of  circumcision,  and  to  claim  for  himself  the  same  right  to 
preach  to  the  Gentiles  which  the  Jerusalem  Apostles  had 
to  preach  to  the  Jews.  On  the  one  side,  official  dignity 
and  traditional  authority ;  on  the  other,  the  force  of  per- 
sonal conviction.  It  is  proof  enough  of  Paul's  strength, 
that  in  the  unequal  conflict  he  carried  the  day.  It  is  a 
happy  thing  for  Christianity  that  in  this  first  great  struggle 
between  the  letter  and  the  spirit,  the  cause  of  Christian 
freedom  found  so  resolute  a  champion.  Paul  did  not  win 
the  Apostles  over  to  his  belief ;  but  he  secured  their  recog- 
nition and  indorsement  of  his  work.  They  consented 
that  the  field  should  be  divided  between  themselves  and 
him.  "  When  James,  Cephas,  and  John,  who  seemed  to 
be  pillars,  perceived  the  grace  given  to  me,  they  gave  to 
me  and  Barnabas  the  right  hands  of  fellowship ;  that  we 


14  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

should  go  unto  the  heathen,  and  they  unto  the  circum- 
cision." x 

That  I  have  not  exaggerated  either  the  importance  of 
this  event,  or  the  gravity  of  the  dissension  between  Paul 
and  his  opponents,  is  amply  proved  by  the  frequent  allu- 
sions to  these  very  points  in  Paul's  several  Epistles.  The 
danger  that  his  followers  would  feel  themselves  still  bound 
by  the  Jewish  Law  seemed  constantly  upon  his  mind. 
"  Stand  fast  therefore  in  the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free,  and  be  not  entangled  again  with  the  yoke 
of  bondage.  Behold,  I  Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye 
be  circumcised  Christ  shall  profit  you  nothing."2  "Why 
turn  ye  again  to  the  weak  and  beggarly  elements,  where- 
unto  ye  desire  again  to  be  in  bondage  ?  Ye  observe  days 
and  months,  and  times  and  years." 3  "  One  believeth 
that  he  may  eat  all  things :  another  who  is  weak  eateth 
herbs."  "One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above  another; 
another  esteemeth  every  day  alike." 4  "  He  is  not  a  Jew 
who  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision  which 
is  outward  in  the  flesh."5  "We  are  the  circumcision, 
which  worship  God  in  the  spirit."  6  "  Let  no  man  judge 
you  in  meat  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  an  holy-day,  or 
of  the  new  moon,  or  of  the  sabbath." 7 

Certain  passages  prove  that  sides  were  early  taken  on 
this  great  question,  and  parties  threatened  the  unity  of  the 
young  church.  "  Every  one  of  you  saith,  I  am  of  Paul ; 
and  I  of  Apollos ;  and  I  of  Cephas ;  and  I  of  Christ.     Is 

1  Gal.  ii.  9.  2  Gal.  v.  1,  2.  8  Gal.  iv.  9,  10.  4  Rom.  xiv.  2,  5. 
5  Rom.  ii.  28.    6  Phil.  iii.  3.    7  Coloss.  ii.  16. 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  1 5 

Christ  divided?  " s  "Now  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark 
them  which  cause  divisions  and  avoid  them."  2  Equally 
significant  are  other  passages  which  indicate  either  that 
Paul  was  strangely  sensitive  as  to  his  official  title,  or  else, 
as  is  far  more  likely,  that  his  opponents  strove  to  lessen 
his  authority  by  denying  him  the  name  of  Apostle,  and 
taunted  him  with  the  fact  that  he  had  received  no  com- 
mission from  Jesus  himself.  "Paul,  an  Apostle,  not  of 
men,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  an  I  God  the  Father."3  "Am 
I  not  an  Apostle?  am  I  not  free?  have  I  not  seen 
Jesus  Christ  our  Lord?  " 4  "I  suppose  I  was  not  a  whit 
behind  the  very  chiefest  Apostles."  "  For  in  nothing  am 
I  behind  the  very  chiefest  Apostles."  5 

The  character  of  the  opposition  which  Paul  encoun- 
tered through  life,  and  the  source  from  which  it  came, 
appear  in  passages  like  these,  — "  His  letters,  say  they, 
are  weighty  and  powerful ;  but  his  bodily  presence  is 
weak,  and  his  speech  contemptible."  "Such  are  false 
apostles,  deceitful  workers,  transforming  themselves  into 
the  Apostles  of  Christ."6  "  I  marvel  that  ye  are  so  soon 
removed  from  him  that  called  you  unto  another  gospel." 
"  If  any  man  preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that 
ye  have  received,  let  him  be  accursed." 7  "  They  that  are 
such  serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  but  their  own  belly  j 
and  by  good  words  and  fair  speeches  deceive  the  hearts 
of  the  simple."8     "Are  they  Hebrews f  so  am  I.     Are 

1  i  Cor.  i.  12.  2  Rom.  xvi.  17.  3  Gal.  1..1.  4  1  Cor.  ix.  1. 
5  2  Cor.  xi.  5;  xii.  11.  6  2  Cor.  x.  10;  xi.  13.  7  Gal.  i.  6,  9. 

8  Rom.  xvi.  18. 


1 6  ORTHODOXY  AND  HERESY. 

they  Israelites  ?  so  am  I.     Are  they  ministers  of  Christ  ? 
I  am  more." 1 

Indeed,  the  most  striking  fact  connected  with  Paul's 
whole  ministry  is  that  which  this  last  passage  so  explicitly 
states ;  that  the  hostility  which  so  constantly  pursued  him, 
which  baffled  his  projects  and  maligned  his  name,  and 
denounced  his  doctrines  and  stole  from  him  the  hearts  of 
his  followers,  arose  not  from  among  the  Jews  whom  he 
had  left,  but  from  among  the  Christians  to  whom  he  came. 
His  bitterest  foes  were  within  the  Church  itself.  This  fact 
has  already  appeared;  it  is  still  more  clearly  proved  by 
his  experiences  during  his  last  visit  to  Jerusalem.  The 
other  Apostles,  as  we  have  seen,  had  dwelt  in  Jerusalem 
for  years  in  perfect  quiet  and  safety.  Not  even  the  per- 
secutions connected  with  Stephen's  death  had  disturbed 
them.  No  sooner,  however,  did  Paul  appear  than  they 
were  filled  with  alarm  for  his  safety.  They  reminded  him 
how  many  Christians  there  were  in  Jerusalem  who  still 
clung  to  the  Law,  and  who  distrusted  him  because  of  his 
giving  up  circumcision.2  They  besought  him  to  silence 
these  prejudices  by  taking  upon  himself  a  vow,  and  shut- 
ting himself  up  for  seven  days  in  the  Temple,  that  the 
people  might  see  how  faithfully  he  kept  the  Law.8  Their 
fears  proved  well-grounded  and  their  precautions  useless. 
The  instant  Paul  was  seen  in  the  Temple  he  was  seized  by 
the  multitudes,  drawn  from  the  Temple,  beaten,  and  was 
on  the  point  of  being  killed,  when  he  was  rescued  by  the 
Roman  soldiery.4     Seised  and  beaten,  not  because  he  was 

1  2  Cor.  xi.  22,  23.  2  Acts  xxi.  20,  21.  3  Acts  xxi.  23-26. 

4  Acts  xxi.  27-32. 


PAUL  AND   THE  APOSTLES.  1 7 

a  Christian,  else  Peter  and  James  and  John  would  long 
before  have  been  seized ;  but  because,  like  Stephen  before 
him,  he  "taught  the  Jews  to  forsake  Moses;"  "because 
he  taught  all  men  everywhere  against  the  people,  and  the 
law,  and  this  place."  *  In  other  words,  Paul  was  perse- 
cuted, if  these  narratives  are  correct,  not  by  Jews,  but  by 
Jewish  Christians. 

This  hostility  to  Paul  and  his  anti-Jewish  teachings, 
does  not  seem  to  have  ceased  with  his  death.  Indeed, 
there  are  some  indications  that  it  was  more  than  a  cen- 
tury before  this  early  antagonism  was  forgotten,  and  the 
Christian  Church  admitted  Paul  to  an  equal  place  in  its 
esteem  with  his  fellow- apostles.  Five  or  six  years  after 
his  death,  the  church  at  Ephesus  is  praised  by  the  writer 
of  the  Revelation  for  having  "  tried  them  which  say  they 
are  apostles,  and  are  not,  and  found  them  liars  ;2"  while  in 
nearly  all  the  "  seven  churches  which  are  in  Asia,"  the  very 
offences  are  pointed  out  which  were  commonly  charged 
upon  Paul's  teachings.3  Among  the  churches  which  he 
had  founded,  some,  we  are  told,  were  made  to  forget  his 
name  ;  among  the  earlier  writers,  some  allude  to  him  as  a 
"teacher  of  error,"  while  others  quietly  ignore  him.  As 
late  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  a  curious  book 
appeared,  under  the  name  of  the  "  Clementine  Homilies," 
purporting  to  give  a  series  of  disputes  between  the  Apos- 
tle Peter  and  the  heretic  Simon  Magus,  in  which  there  is 
little  doubt  that  under  the  disguise  of  Simon  Magus,  Paul 
himself  is  intended  and  exposed  to  reprobation.  He  is 
1  Acts  xxi.  21-28.      2  Rev.  ii.  2.       3  Rev.  ii,  iiij  comp.  2  Tim.  i.  15. 

ffTTSIVEJ-". 


1 8  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

represented  as  corrupting  the  teachings  of  Peter,  and 
bringing  in  false  doctrines.  "Some  there  were,"  says 
Peter,  "  who  rejected  my  teachings,  and  followed  the  un- 
lawful and  worthless  doctrine  of  one  hostile  to  me.  Even 
during  my  life,  some  undertook,  by  artificial  interpretation, 
to  twist  my  precepts  into  the  overthrow  of  the  Law."  In 
another  place,  as  if  in  allusion  to  Paul's  claim  to  have 
received  his  inspiration  through  visions,  Peter  says,  "  Can 
one  become  an  Apostle  through  a  vision?  If  thou  in  a 
single  hour  couldst  be  made  a  teacher  by  a  vision,  why 
then  should  Christ  have  remained  with  his  disciples  and 
taught  them  for  an  entire  year?"1 

Indeed,  these  opponents  of  Paul  and  his  doctrines 
became  by  degrees  a  sect.  In  later  times,  when  Paul's 
idea  of  Christianity  had  won  a  tardy  acceptance,  they 
were  pronounced  heretics  under  the  name  of  Ebionites. 
The  Ebionites  were  those  Christians  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries  who  regarded  Christianity  as  "  Judaism  per- 
fected by  a  few  additional  precepts  ;  " 2  who  claimed  that 
the  Mosaic  Law  was  still  in  force ;  who  looked  towards 
Jerusalem  when  they  prayed ;  who  believed  in  circum- 
cision ;  who  kept  the  Jewish  Passover ;  who  looked  upon 
Jesus  as  simply  a  man  distinguished  above  others  for  legal 
piety  and  so  becoming  Lawgiver  and  Messiah,  and  to 
be   classed  with  Moses  and  the  Prophets;    and  finally, 

1  Quoted  in  Baur's  Christenthum  der  ersten  drei  Jahrhunderte 
i.  80,  81.     Comp.  also  Neander's  History  of  Christian  Church,  i. 

353-361. 

2  Neander,  i.  344  ;  Bleek's   Introduc.  to  N.  Test,  i.,  113. 


PAUL  AND  THE  APOSTLES.  1 9 

who  hated  the  Apostle  Paul  and  rejected  his  Epistles. 
In  a  word,  the  Ebionites  were  the  legitimate  successors 
and  exact  counterparts  of  the  party  that  arrayed  itself 
against  Paul  while  Paul  still  lived.  In  the  fourth  century 
they  are  heretics  ; 1  in  the  first  century  they  are  the  Apos- 
tles at  Jerusalem. 

Such  then  was  the  first  great  struggle  within  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  In  these  days,  when  Christianity,  though  still 
somewhat  "  entangled  with  the  yoke  of  bondage,"  has  yet 
learned  to  claim  with  pride  that  its  message  is  a  universal 
one,  and  when  no  one  denies  that  within  Christian  limits 
"  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither 
male  nor  female,"  it  is  difficult  for  us  to  carry  our  imagina- 
tions back  to  the  time  when  this  point  was  still  at  issue. 
Yet  it  is  well  for  us  to  remember  this.  It  is  well  for  us  to 
remember  that  for  more  than  a  century  it  was  an  open 
question  whether  Christianity  was  to  be  a  new  Jewish  sect, 
or  a  new  religion.  And  it  is  well  for  us  to  recall  some  of 
the  bitter  conflicts  by  which  the  question  was  decided. 
For  nearly  a  hundred  years  the  church  founded  by  the 
Apostles  at  Jerusalem,  according  .to  one  ancient  account 
at  least,  could  be  called  Hebrew  or  Christian  indifferently, 
and  assumed  a  distinctively  non-Jewish  character  only 
after  its  re-establishment  in  Jerusalem  under  Hadrian.2 
The  emancipation  of  Christianity  from  the  bonds  of 
Judaism,  the  vindication  of  its  separate  right  to  be,  was 

1  Baur,  i.  157  ;  Renan's  Evangiles,  44-54  ;  Gibbons  Roman  Em- 
pire, ii.  67.  2  Eusebius,  B.  iv.  ch.  5,  6. 


20  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

not  the  work  of  a  day  or  an  hour,  but  ran  with  varying 
and  uncertain  result  through,  and  far  beyond,  the  life  of 
the  great  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles.  While  he  lived  the 
question  was  determined  by  the  sheer  weight  of  his  invin- 
cible personality;  after  his  death  it  was  mainly  the  im- 
pulse he  had  given  it,  and  the  noble  words  he  left  behind 
him,  which  carried  the  problem  to  its  triumphant  conclu- 
sion. 

No  one  who  cares  for  his  Christian  faith  can  refuse  his 
interest  to  the  hours  when  this  point  was  still  undecided ; 
his  sympathy  to  those  who  so  valiantly  fought  for  what  long 
seemed  a  hopeless  cause ;  or  his  gratitude  to  the  great 
leader  who,  against  overwhelming  odds,  maintained  the 
cause  of  spiritual  freedom,  and  pledged  Christianity  to  the 
largest  service. 

December  14,  1873. 


II. 


VIEWS    OF  THE    EARLY    CHURCH    CON- 
CERNING  CHRIST. 

"\  /I"Y  present  lecture  grows  naturally  out  of  the  preced- 
-*■»•*■  ing.  In  glancing  at  the  early  church,  so  far  from 
finding  a  fixed  ecclesiastical  form  or  definite  theological 
doctrines  at  the  start,  we  found  the  first  generation  of 
believers  engaged  in  a  serious  controversy.  One  of  the 
most  vital  questions  that  could  arise  was  still  undecided, 
and  threatened  to  divide  the  infant  Church  in  twain ; 
the  question  whether  Christianity  was  to  be  merely  a 
modification  of  Judaism,  or  a  distinct  religion  addressed 
to  all  who  would  receive  it.  The  immediate  disciples 
of  Jesus,  strongly  Jewish  in  their  feelings,  as  they  had 
been  during  their  Master's  life,  regarded  Christianity  as 
simply  a  new  development  of  the  Mosaic  faith  ;  while  the 
new-comer,  Paul,  seeing  at  once  the  larger  meaning  of 
the  truth  to  which  he  was  converted,  insisted  upon  wel- 
coming Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews,  on  the  single  con- 
dition of  their  belief  in  Christ.  The  question  was  too 
important  to  be  left  unsettled,  yet  the  differences  were 
too  great  to  be  reconciled  in  an  hour.  In  fact,  the 
history  of  the  first  century  of  Christianity  is  mainly  the 


22  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

record  of  the  struggles  by  which  Christianity  vindicated  its 
right  to  a  name  and  a  career  of  its  own. 

But  this  controversy  involved,  of  course,  much  more 
than  the  one  question  of  admitting  Gentiles  to  the  church 
without  circumcision.  It  involved  the  nature  and  character 
of  Jesus  himself.  According  to  one  of  these  two  parties, 
Jesus  was  simply  the  long-expected  Messiah  of  the  Jews  ; 
according  to  the  other,  he  was  a  religious  teacher,  and  the 
divine  messenger  of  a  new  faith.  We  cannot  be  surprised, 
therefore,  to  find  this  question  a  very  prominent  one  in 
those  early  years ;  and  to  find  also  many  conflicting  views 
of  Christ's  nature  among  his  followers,  before  a  definite 
and  generally  accepted  opinion  was  reached.  To  trace 
the  more  interesting  of  these  early  views  is  my  purpose 
to-night. 

As  I  have  just  intimated,  the  entire  controversy  concern- 
ing Christ's  nature,  which  has  continued  unbroken  in  the 
Christian  church  down  to  our  own  day,  originated  in  the 
twofold  conception  of  his  person  and  his  office  which  ex- 
isted while  the  church  was  forming.  Indeed,  this  twofold 
conception  appears  plainly  in  the  Christian  Scriptures 
themselves,  written  as  they  were  during  the  first  half- cen- 
tury or  century  of  the  growth  of  the  church.  The  gener- 
ation which  first  had  written  Gospels  and  Epistles  in  their 
hands  found  imbedded  in  them  at  least  two  distinct  views 
of  the  nature  of  Jesus.  As  this  point  is  of  great  impor- 
tance to  the  further  discussion,  let  me  state  it  as  plainly  as 
my  space  allows. 

In  the  first  three  Gospels,  which,  although  composed 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  23 

later  than  some  of  Paul's  Epistles,  yet  represent,  in  the 
original  material  from  which  they  are  drawn,  the  earliest 
existing  narratives  and  impressions  of  Christian  times, 
Jesus  appears  in  strictest  sense  as  the  Jewish  Messiah. 
His  family  register  stands  upon  the  first  page,  proving  him 
an  anointed  King  or  Messiah  in  regular  descent  from  the 
house  of  David.  As  we  read  on,  we  find  frequent  allusions 
to  "the  Kingdom,"  "the  Kingdom  of  God,"  "the  King- 
dom of  Heaven,"  "  Kingdom  of  our  father  David,"  "  Chil- 
dren of  the  Kingdom  j "  all  these  being  current  designa- 
tions of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Messiah.  As  we  read  too,  we 
find  such  words  as  these  :  "  Go  not  into  the  way  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter  ye  not, 
but  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel."  * 
"  I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of 
Israel." 2  "  Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  Law 
or  the  Prophets ;  I  am  not  come  to  destroy  but  to  fulfil."  8 
In  these  pages  too,  more  fully  than  elsewhere,  we  find 
quotations  from  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  to  prove  that  the 
ancient  prophecies  found  their  fulfilment  at  last  in  the  per- 
son of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

In  the  first  three  Gospels  then,  Jesus  appears  exclu- 
sively as  the  Jewish  Messiah  or  Christ.  And  the  Jewish 
Messiah,  I  need  not  remind  you,  was  never  thought  of 
except  as  a  man.  Indeed,  to  the  purely  Jewish  mind, 
trained  for  centuries  to  think  of  Jehovah  as  in  absolute 
isolation  from  his  human  subjects,  no  other  thought  could 
well  present  itself;  and  certainly  none  other  is  found  in  all 
*  Matt.  x.  5,  6.  2  Matt.  xv.  24.  8  Matt  v.  17. 


24  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  Jewish  Scriptures,  or  in  the  New  Testament  writings 
which  most  reflect  the  Jewish  spirit.  According  to  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke,  Jesus  was  a  purely  human  Messiah. 
They  give,  as  we  have  seen,  his  human  descent,  with 
domestic  incidents  of  his  life,  they  record  his  Temptation, 
his  gradual  recognition  of  his  coming  fate,  the  agony  of 
the  garden,  the  exclamation  of  despair  upon  the  cross. 
They  represent  him  as  foretold  by  the  prophets,  indeed, 
but  foretold  only  as  an  anointed  King.  They  call  him 
the  Son  of  God,  but  this  was  simply  an  Old  Testament 
designation  of  the  Messiah.1  Two  of  these  Gospels  speak 
of  a  miraculous  birth,  and  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
from  heaven  at  his  baptism ;  but  this  would  only  make 
him  a  greater  Messiah  than  any  before.  He  wrought 
miracles,  it  is  true ;  but  so,  according  to  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures, had  Moses  and  Samuel,  and  Elijah  and  Elisha,  — 
human  beings  all  of  them.  Indeed,  so  did  many  of  the 
Jews  still  living,  by  the  testimony  of  Jesus  himself.  "  If  I 
by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils,  by  whom  do  your  children 
cast  them  out?"2  It  is  quite  safe  to  say  that  throughout 
the  first  three  Gospels,  Jesus  is  in  no  single  passage 
ranked   above  humanity. 

The  moment  we  turn,  however,  from  these  Gospels  to 
the  Epistles  of  Paul,  we  find  ourselves  in  another  region 
of  thought  and  faith.  Paul,  as  we  have  seen,  found  the 
views  held  by  the  Apostles  at  Jerusalem  too  narrow  for 
him,  and  claimed  for  his  great  teacher  a  nobler  work  than 
simply  the  re-establishment  of  the  Jewish  kingdom.  And 
1  Ps.  ii.  7.  2  Matt.  xii.  27. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.  25 

not  only  the  mission  of  Christianity  but  also  the  person  of 
Jesus  began  to  assume,  to  Paul's  thought,  a  higher  dignity, 
and  quite  supernatural  glory.  How  gradually  this  trans- 
formation took  place  in  Paul's  mind  his  writings  give  in- 
teresting proof;  where  it  is  not  impossible  to  trace  the 
successive  steps  by  which  the  popular  conception  of  Jesus 
as  the  national  Messiah  passed  into  mystic  visions  of  a 
being  in  whom  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt.  In 
his  earlier  epistles  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  his  views 
on  this  point  from  those  which  prevailed  about  him.  He 
begs  the  Thessalonians  to  be  ready  for  "  the  coming  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  all  his  saints,"  1  and  assures  them 
that  those  who  had  already  died,  or  should  die  before  that 
event  occurred,  although  in  their  graves,  should  share  in 
the  kingdom  as  well  as  those  who  were  still  alive.  "  For 
the  Lord  himself-  shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout, 
with  the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump  of 
God;  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first.  Then  we 
which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be  caught  up  together 
with  them  in  the  clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air." 2 

But  such  conceptions  as  this  could  not  long  satisfy  a 
mind  like  Paul's ;  and  certain  mystic  phrases  and  allegor- 
ical interpretations  of  Scripture,  already  familiar  to  him 
in  his  rabbinical  training,  could  hardly  fail  to  suggest  them- 
selves to  him  now  as  he  dwelt  on  this  absorbing  theme. 
Among  the  rest,  the  twofold  account  of  the  creation  in  the 
first  chapter  of  Genesis,  which  had  supplied  rabbinical 
theology  with  the  idea  of  a  first  Adam  who  was  earthly,  and 
1 1  Th.  iii.  13.  2  j  Th.  iv>  T^  I7. 


26  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

a  second,  or  ideal,  Adam  who  was  heavenly,  created  "  in 
the  image  "  and  after  the  likeness  of  God  himself,  came 
naturally  to  his  thought,  and  led  him  to  see  in  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  this  ideal  and  heavenly  man,  prefigured  from  the 
creation.  In  his  resurrection,  Jesus  had  proved  himself 
possessed  not  only  of  a  corruptible  physical  body,  but  also 
of  an  incorruptible  spiritual  body.  "  Sown  a  natural 
body,"  he  had  been  ''raised  a  spiritual  body."  And  so 
the  old  Scripture  had  been  fulfilled,  and  the  long-awaited 
heavenly  Messiah  had  appeared.  And  so  it  is  written 
(referring  to  Gen.  i.  ii.)  ;  "The  first  man  Adam  was 
made  a  living  soul  (pure  animal  life),  the  last  Adam  was 
made  a  quickening  spirit."  "The  first  man  is  of  the 
earth  earthy,  the  second  man  is  from  heaven."  l 

But  having  gone  as  far  as  this,  Paul,  however  little  of  a 
mystic  or  idealist  he  may  have  been  by  nature,  could 
hardly  help  going  further,  and  asking  himself  at  least  where 
among  the  various  ranks  of  invisible  creatures  by  which, 
according  to  the  belief  of  the  day,  the  heavens  were  filled, 
this  heavenly  being,  this  Second  Adam,  was  to  be  placed. 
As  time  passed  on  and  Jesus  did  not  appear,  and  Paul 
was  called  to  spend  many  solitary  hours  in  imprisonment, 
his  mind  seems  to  have  turned  more  readily  to  metaphys- 
ical reveries  and  to  have  associated  the  thought  of  Jesus 
more  and  more  closely  with  the  current  philosophical 
speculations  of  the  hour.  Hence  the  peculiar  coloring  to 
be  found  in  his  latest  epistles,  especially  those  to  the  Colos- 

1 1  Cor.  xv.  44,  47.  See  Gfrorer's  Gesch.  d.  Urchristenthums,  ii. 
235;  Bunsen's  Bibelwerk,  viii.  374  ;  Meyer  on  1  Cor.  xv.  45. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  2J 

sians,  Ephesians,  and  Philippians ;  a  coloring  so  marked 
and  distinct  as  to  lead  many  recent  commentators  to  deny 
their  authenticity  and  ascribe  to  them  a  later  Gnostic  origin. 
Evidently  (assuming  the  genuineness  of  these  epistles), 
no  words  seemed  to  Paul  too  strong,  none  of  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  day  too  sublime,  to  describe  the  person  or 
the  place  of  this  glorious  being  whose  mission  was  not  to 
any  single  people,  but  to  universal  humanity.1  Christ  is 
"the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  every 
creature."  He  is  the  agent  of  God  in  creation  :  "  By  him 
were  all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven  and  that  are  in 
earth ; "  "  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things 
consist."  He  shares  in  the  very  essence  of  Deity,  though 
not  himself  Deity :  "  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in 
him  should  all  fulness  dwell ;  "  "  In  him  dwelleth  all  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily ;  "  2  "  Wherefore  God  also 
hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is 
above  every  other  name :  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in 
earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every  tongue 
should  confess  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Father."3  So  intimately,  indeed,  was  he  associated  with 
God  that,  though  tempted  (as  others  angels  had  been)  to 
make  himself  equal  with  God,  he  had  yet  refrained,  and 
taken  on  himself  instead  the  semblance  of  humanity : 
"  Who  being  in  the  form  of  God  (by  nature  divine)  did 
not   choose   violently  to  grasp   equality  with   God,   but 

1  See  Baur's  Christenthum,  i.  284-290.     2  Coloss.  i.  15-17;  ii.  9. 
3  Phil.  ii.  9-1 1. 


28  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

made  himself  of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  himself 
the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of 
men."1 

That  this  is  a  very  exalted  conception  of  Christ's  nature 
no  one  can  deny.  To  many  minds  it  would  seem  equiva- 
lent to  saying  that  Jesus  was  in  some  sense  God.  Paul 
himself,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  does  not  suggest  this. 
In*no  passage  of  his  epistles  is  Jesus  called  God ; 2  nor, 
indeed,  does  Paul  ever  hesitate,  in  the  midst  of  the  most 
sublime  phraseology,  to  call  him  man :  "  Since  by  man 
came  death,  by  man  came  also  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead;"  "The  first  man  Adam  was  made  a  living  soul, 
the  last  Adam  was  made  a  quickening  spirit ;  " 8  "If 
through  the  offence  of  one  many  be  dead,  much  more 
the  grace  of  God,  which  is  by  one  man,  Jesus  Christ, 
hath  abounded  unto  many ; " 4  "  He  will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness  by  that  man  whom  he  hath  or- 
dained."5 Whatever  difficulty  such  a  conception  may 
cause  to  modern  theologians,  Paul  found  it  quite  easy,  as 
we  have  seen,  to  speak  of  "  the  man  from  heaven." 6  But 
whatever  Paul's  own  position  in  this  matter,  it  is  quite 

1  Phil.  ii.  6,  7,  —  corrected  translation. 

2  The  only  possible  exception  to  this  statement  is  Rom.  ix.  5, 
where  the  common  version,  although  contested  by  the  best  author- 
ities, is  certainly  the  most  natural  one  ;  the  strongest  argument 
against  it  being  that,  if  correct,  this  would  be  the  only  place  where 
Paul  applies  the  term  God  to  Christ,  or  ascribes  to  him  the  doxol- 
ogy.  The  question  is  one  of  punctuation ;  the  corrected  reading 
being,  "  God  over  all  be  blessed  forever."  Titus  ii.  13,  however 
translated,  is  of  a  much  later  date. 

8  1  Cor.  xv.  21,  45.  4  Rom  v.  15.  .  5  Acts  xvii.  31.  6  1  Cor. 
xv.  47.    The  best  readings  omit  "  the  Lord  "  from  this  verse. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING    CHRIST.  29 

natural  that  when  meditation  on  the  subject  once  be- 
gan, others  would  refuse  to  stop  just  there,  and  that 
this  supernatural  being,  who  had  existed  from  the  begin- 
ning, and  in  whom  "all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead 
dwelt,"  should  be  in  the  end  lifted  quite  beyond  the 
realm  of  humanity. 

When  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  written,  this  step  seems 
to  have  been  already  taken.  The  date  of  this  Gospel  is 
still  uncertain ;  many  critics,  with  no  little  reason  on  their 
side,  placing  it  as  late  as  the  middle  of  the  second  century, 
before  which  time  no  positive  proofs  of  its  existence  can 
be  found.  Taking  the  earliest  date  ever  given,  however,1 
and  supposing  John  to  have  been  its  author,  it  must  have 
been  written  nearly  fifty  years  after  Christ's  death,  thirty 
years  later  than  Paul's  earliest  epistles,2  and  twenty  years 
later  than  his  last.3  Time  had  been  given,  therefore,  for' 
much  speculation  upon  the  office  and  person  of  Christ ; 
and  whoever  the  writer  may  have  been,  he  was  evidently 
not  averse  to  speculation,  nor  one  to  whom  the  religious 
thought  of  the  day  could  be  unknown. 

What  religious  ideas  were  current  among  the  more 
cultivated  Jews  at  this  period  is  now  pretty  well  known, 
and  can  be  understood  by  recalling  the  experience  of  the 
nation  after  the  time  of  their  exile.  Upon  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem,  while  part  of  the  Jewish  people  were  carried 
captive  to  Babylon,  another  large  portion  took  refuge  in 
Egypt,  which  became  from  that  time  the  home  of  a  large 
Jewish  colony.  From  each  of  these  two  sources  a  per- 
1  About  a.  D.  80.        2  A.  D.  52  or  53.        3  a.  d  60  or  63. 


30  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

ceptible  influence  was  exerted  upon  the  primitive  Mosaic 
faith. 

According  to  the  religious  philosophy  of  Zoroaster, 
which  became  familiar  to  the  Jews  in  Babylon,  Ormuzd, 
the  God  of  Light,  brought  everything  into  being  by  his 
Word,  which  had  existed  before  the  world.  He  spoke, 
and  all  good  things  were  created.  All  understanding, 
wisdom,  virtue,  are  expressions  of  this  Word.  The  Chal- 
daic  paraphrases  of  the  Old  Testament  show  that  this 
conception  of  the  divine  Word  (Memra)  had  found  its 
way  into  Jewish  theology  before  the  time  of  Christ.1 

In  Egypt,  the  Jews  encountered  a  somewhat  similar 
conception  and  similar  phraseology  in  the  Greek  philoso- 
phy which  had  also  found  a  home  there,  and  which 
had  taken  the  form  of  a  modified  Platonism.2  The 
influence  of  this  upon  their  religious  ideas  appears  most 
plainly  in  the  works  of  Philo,  a  prolific  Jewish  writer 
of  Alexandria,  born  about  twenty  years  before  Christ. 
According  to  Philo,  God  is  himself  pure  being,  indefina- 
ble by  words,  incomprehensible  to  human  thought,  and 
dwelling  in  entire  isolation  from  the  universe.  "  The  liv- 
ing God  (to  w),  inasmuch  as  he  is  pure  being,  does  not 
exist  in  relation  to  any  thing,  for  he  himself  is  full  of  him- 
self, and  is  sufficient  to  himself." 3    To  carry  out  the  work 

1  See  Targums  of  Onkelos,  and  of  Palestine  ;  Etheridge's  Edi. 
ion,  I.  Introduc.  pp.  14-24 ;  II.  Glossary.  Bretschneider's  Glau- 
benslehre  (1844),  pp.  197,  299. 

2  For  the  opposite  view  of  Zoroastrian  and  Platonic  influences, 
cee  Nicolas'  "  Doctrines  Religieuses  des  Juifs,"  P.  II.  ch.  II. 

3  Philonis  Opera,  Ed.  Richter,  Lips.  1828:  De  Mutatione  Nomi 
.  urn,  §  4 ;  De  Somnis,  i.  39. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  3 1 

of  creation,  a  work  not  in  itself  befitting  an  infinitely  pure 
Being,  God  made  use  of  certain  incorporeal  powers 
called  "  ideas."  Of  these  "  ideas,"  which  are  sometimes 
described  by  Philo  as  divine  attributes  merely,  sometimes 
as  distinct  personifications,  he  distinguishes  some  by 
name ;  among  others,  the  kingly  or  royal  power,  as  Lord, 
and  the  creative  power  by  which  the  universe  was  made, 
as  God.1  Lest,  however,  these  subordinate  powers,  though 
called  Lord  or  God,  should  be  confounded  with  the  one 
Supreme  Deity,  he  points  out  in  another  place  the  true 
method  of  distinguishing  them  :  u  The  true  God  is  one  ; 
but  they  who  are  called  Gods  are  many.  Wherefore  the 
Holy  Scripture  indicates  the  true  God  by  means  of  the 
article  (6  #eoY),  but  refers  to  those  metaphorically  called 
Gods  without  the  article  (#co's)."2  Among  these  many 
divine  agencies,  was  one  special  representative  of  Deity, 
not  Deity  itself  but  divine,  which  Philo,  borrowing  a  term 
familiar  to  Greek  philosophy  from  the  time  of  Plato, 
calls  the  Logos  or  Word.3  This  Logos  was  the  "  idea 
of  ideas,"4  and  was  the  instrument  of  creation,  God 
himself  being  the  cause.  In  all  those  passages  of  Old 
Testament  history  where  God  is  represented  as  taking 
part  in  human  affairs,  it  was  really,  according  to  Philo,  the 
Logos  acting  in  the  place  of  Deity.  It  was  the  Logos 
who  appeared  to  Hagar  when  cast  out  with  Ishmael,  who 

1  Philo,  De  Mutatione  Nominum,  §  4 ;  De  Somnis,  i.  26. 

2  Philo,  De  Somnis,  i.  39. 

3  For  the  Stoic  conception  of  the  \670s  as  6e6s,  comp.  Uberweg's 
Hist,  of  Philosophy,  i.  195  ;  also,  Ritter's  Hist,  of  Anc.  Philosophy 
iii.  528  n.  *  Philo,  De  Opificio  Mundi,  §  6. 


32  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

destroyed  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  who  wrestled  with  Jacob 
all  night  long,  who  spoke  to  Moses  from  the  burning  bush, 
who  came  to  Balaam,  who  led  Israel  through  the  wilder- 
ness. This  Logos  receives  at  Philo's  hand  many  exalted 
epithets.  It  is  the  "  image  of  God."  "  For  even  if  we 
are  not  yet  worthy  to  be  called  children  of  God,  we  may 
certainly  be  called  children  of  his  eternal  image,  the  most 
holy  Logos ;  for  the  most  ancient  Logos  is  the  image  of 
God."1  It  is  the  great  High  Priest  ('Ap^tcpcvs) ;  the 
Mediator  between  God  and  man.  "  The  Logos  is  a  per- 
petual suppliant  in  behalf  of  mortal  man  before  the  im- 
mortal one.  And  the  Logos  rejoices  in  its  office  and 
exalts  it,  saying,  '  I  stood  in  the  midst  between  the  Lord 
and  you ; ' 2  being  neither  un-begotten  as  Deity,  nor  yet 
begotten  like  you,  but  between  the  two,  a  hostage  to  both."  8 
It  is  the  first-born  of  God  (irpoiroyovos) .  "  For  there  are, 
it  appears,  two  temples  of  God ;  one  of  which  is  the 
world,  in  which,  as  high-priest,  is  his  first-born,  the  divine 
Logos."4  It  is  the  Helper  or  Comforter  {ira.po.Kkiqro'C) . 
"  It  was  necessary  that  the  high-priest  (whose  breast- 
plate, according  to  Philo,  allegorically  represented  the 
Logos)  should  employ  as  Helper,  the  Son,  most  perfect 
in  virtue,  to  procure  forgiveness  of  sins."  5  Finally,  the 
Logos  is  God,  a  second  god  (Seirrepo?  6*6%).  Quoting 
the  passage  from  Genesis,  "  In  the  image  of  God  created 
he  man,"   Philo  says :    "  Very  beautifully   and  wisely  is 

1  Philo,  De  Confus.  Ling.  §  28.  2  Num.  xvi.  48. 

8  Philo,  Quis  Rer.  Div.  Her.  §  42.        4  Philo,  De  Somnis,  i.  §  37 

5  Philo,  De  Vita  Moys.  iii.  §  14. 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  33 

this  expression  used  ("in  the  image  of  God,"  instead  of 
"  in  his  image  "),  for  nothing  mortal  could  be  made  in  the 
image  of  the  most  high  God,  the  Father  of  all ;  it  could 
only  be  made  in  the  image  of  the  second  God,  which 
is  his  Word."1 

That  this  idea  of  an  intermediate  power  between  the 
Supreme  Deity  and  his  creation,  an  emanation  from  the 
hidden  God,  taking  personal  form,  had  found  entrance 
into  the  Jewish  mind  long  before  the  times  of  which  we 
are  now  speaking,  is  plainly  proved  by  passages  both  from 
their  Canonical  and  from  their  Apocryphal  writings.  "  I, 
Wisdom,  dwell  with  Prudence."  "The  Lord  possessed 
me  in  the  beginning  of  his  way,  before  his  works  of  old. 
I  was  anointed  from  everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or 
ever  the  earth  was,"  &c.2  "  Wisdom  hath  been  created 
before  all  things." 8  "I  came  out  of  the  mouth  of  the 
Most  Hi^h  J*  I  alone  compassed  the  circuit  of  heaven, 
and  walked  in  the  bottom  of  the  deep."  "  Come  unto 
me,  all  ye  that  be  desirous  of  me,  and  fill  yourselves  with 
my  fruits."  "  They  that  eat  me  shall  yet  be  hungry,  and 
they  that  drink  me  shall  yet  be  thirsty."  4  "I  called  upon 
God  and  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  came  unto  me."  "  In  her 
is  a  spirit  which  is  wise,  holy,  the  only  begotten."  "  She 
is  a  breath  from  the  power  of  God."  "  She  is  a  reflec- 
tion of  the  everlasting  Light,  the  unspotted  mirror  of  the 
power  of  God,  and  the  image  of  his  goodness." 5     "  Thine 

1  Philo,  Fragmenta,  §  625.  2  Prov.  viii.  12,  22,  23. 

8  Ecclesiasticus,  i.  4.  4  Id.  xxiv.  3,  5,  19,  21. 

5  Wis.  of  Solomon,  vii.  7,  22,  25,  26. 

3 


34  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

almighty  Word  leaped  down  from  heaven  out  of  thy  royal 
throne."  * 

Still  more  evident  is  the  influence  of  this  thought  upon 
the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  To  his  mind  it  offered 
not  the  terms  of  speech  alone,  but  the  very  order  of  re- 
ligious ideas  which  best  embodied  his  conception  of  the 
spirit  and  work  of  Christ.  In  this  Gospel  is  no  longer 
any  suggestion  of  Jesus  as  the  human  Messiah.  Human 
interests  are  almost  lost  from  sight.  Here  is  no  family 
life  or  personal  incident;  no  vicissitude  of  emotion  or 
affection ;  no  temptation  or  agony ;  here  are  no  beati- 
tudes, no  parables,  no  moral  precepts.  We  are  walking 
among  supernal  beings,  listening  to  exalted  speech,  watch- 
ing a  celestial  life.  This  is  not  the  Christ  of  the  first  three 
Gospels ;  it  is  something  even  less  terrestrial  than  the  glo- 
rified being  of  Paul's  Epistles.  It  is  "  the  true  Light  which 
lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world."  It  is  the 
"  only  begotten  Son  which  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father." 
It  is  "  the  Word."  "  The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with 
God.  All  things  were  made  by  him;  and  without  him 
was  not  anything  made  that  was  made.  In  him  was  life, 
and  the  life  was  the  light  of  men."  "  And  the  Word  was 
made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  2 
To  this  "Word  of  God,"  so  mystic  in  its  nature  and 
source,  divine  power  is  given.  "The  Father  loveth  the 
Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand.  He  that 
belie veth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life."  3  "  The 
Father  judgeth  no  man,  but  hath  committed  all  judgment 

1  Wis.  of  Solomon,  xviii.  15.       2  John  i.  1-4 ;  14.        3  iii.  35,  36. 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  35 

unto  the  Son,  that  all  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father."1  He  is  of  celestial  nature.  "As 
the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  hath  he  given  to  the 
Son  to  have  life  in  himself."  2  "lam  the  bread  of  life." 
"  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came  down  from  heaven." 3 
"  Ye  are  from  beneath  ;  I  am  from  above  :  ye  are  of  this 
world  ;  I  am  not  of  this  world."  "  Before  Abraham  was, 
I  am." 4  He  stands  in  mysterious  relations  with  the 
Father.  "  No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by  me." 
"  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in 
me."  "  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father." 5 
"  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  6 

Does  this  mean  that  the  Son  was  God?  The  whole 
tone  of  the  religious  philosophy  with  which  this  Gos- 
pel is  in  such  entire  harmony  makes  the  answer  easy. 
Philo,  as  we  have  seen,  with  all  the  writers  of  his  school, 
insists  that  there  is  but  one  God,  who  is  absolute  Be- 
ing coming  into  no  contact  with  the  universe.  From 
him  issues  the  Logos  to  do  the  work  of  creation  ;  and 
this  Logos,  though  not  the  Infinite  God  himself,  yet 
shared  the  divine  nature.  To  express  this  they  did  not 
hesitate  to  use  the  term  God,  though  always  without  the 
article.  In  no  simpler  way  could  they  indicate  identity 
of  nature  without  identity  of  person.  Taken  in  this  sense, 
therefore,  their  language  is  unequivocal.  Says  the  Neo- 
Platonic  philosophy,  "The  Word  is  God"  (0Cos).  Says 

1  John  v.  22,  23.  2  v.  26. 

8  vi.  48,  51.  4  viii.  23,  58. 

5  xiv.  6,  9,  11.  6  x.  30. 


36  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

the  Fourth  Gospel  also,  "  The  Word  was  God  "  (0eos  ?v 
6  Aoyos).1 

Such  then  was  the  situation  at  the  close  of  what  may  be 
called,  somewhat  indefinitely,  the  Apostolic  age.  Within 
the  ranks  of  the  Church,  and,  as  soon  as  Scriptures  exist, 
within  the  Christian  Scriptures  themselves,  two  distinct 
conceptions  of  the  nature  of  Christ ;  the  one  making  him 
a  human  and  national  Messiah,  the  other  (treating  Paul's 
view  and  John's  as  in  this  comparison  virtually  one),  a 
heavenly  being  in  intimate  relations  with  the  Father.  That 
a  corresponding  difference  of  opinion  should  appear  in  the 
writings  of  the  age  which  immediately  followed,  in  other 
words  that  each  of  these  Bible-views  should  have  its  fol- 
lowers, is  only  natural.  Let  me  try  to  show  this  conflict 
of  opinion,  and  the  gradual  growth  of  clearer  conceptions, 
by  brief  quotations  from  the  earlier  Fathers  of  the  Church. 

First,  Justin  Martyr,  a  Greek  convert  to  Christianity,2 
the  first  of  the  well-known  Christian  Fathers,  gives  us  a 
full  account8  of  a  dialogue,  real  or  supposed,  between 
himself  and  one  Trypho,  a  Jew,  in  which  Justin  seems  to 
be  combating  the  very  Jewish  idea  of  Christ  of  which  I 
have  already  spoken.  Trypho  cannot  understand  how 
Jesus  "  submitted  to  be  born  and  become  man,  and  yet  is 
not  man  [born]  of  men."4     "How  can  you  show  that 

1  See  Meyer's  Handbuch  iiber  das  Evangelium  des  Johannes, 
p.  40 ;  Baur's  Christenthum,  1.  298  ;  Bretschneider,  p.  299. 

2  Died  A.  D.  165.  3  Written  about  140. 

4  Jus.  Martyr's  Works,  pp.  134,  148.  The  quotations  from  the 
Fathers,  given  in  this  lecture,  are  made  from  Clarke's  Ante-Nicene 
Library. 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  37 

beside  the  Maker  of  all  things  there  is  another  God 
who  submitted  to  be  born  of  a  virgin?"1  Justin  replies 
by  confessing,  "  Some  there  are  among  ourselves  who 
admit  that  Jesus  is  Christ,  while  holding  him  to  be  man 
of  men."2  He  afterwards  gives  his  own  view:  "God 
begat  before  all  creatures,  a  certain  rational  power, 
proceeding  from  himself,  called  Glory  of  the  Lord,  Son, 
Wisdom,  Angel,  God,  Lord,  Logos."  8  "  Moses  declares 
that  He  who  appeared  unto  Abraham  under  the  oak 
at  Mamre  is  God ;  sent  with  two  angels  by  Another 
who  remains  ever  in  supercelestial  places,  invisible  to 
all,  holding  personal  intercourse  with  none,  whom  we 
believe  to  be  Father  and  Maker  of  all  things."4  "God 
(or  Angel,  Lord,  Christ)  wrestled  with  Jacob."  5  "He 
who  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  is  called  God,  is  distinct 
from  Him  who  made  all  things ;  numerically  I  mean,  not 
in  will."  6  "  He  who  has  but  the  smallest  intelligence  will 
not  venture  to  assert  that  the  Maker  and  Father  of  all 
things,  having  left  all  supercelestial  matters,  was  visible  in 
a  little  portion  of  the  earth." 7  "  You  must  not  imagine 
that  the  unbegotten  God  'came  down'  and  'went  up.'  " 
Justin's  argument  in  this  case  is  very  simple ;  if  God  came 
down  to  the  earth  to  do  certain  things,  there  would  have 
been  no  God  in  heaven,  when  those  things  happened.8 
Indeed,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  in  reference  to  the 
"  raining  fire  from  heaven ; "  "  One  God  was  in  heaven, 
another   God  on  earth."  9     This   God  on  earth  was,  of 

1  Jus.  Martyr's  Works,  p.  151.     2  Trypho,  xlviii.     3  p.  170.     4  p.  1 58. 
6  p.  167.  6  p.  160.  7  p.  169.  '  8p.  260.     9  p.  263. 


38  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

course,  the  God  who  afterwards  appeared  in  Christ.1  In 
other  words,  the  Christian  mind  at  this  time,  taking 
Justin  Martyr  as  its  representative,  had  got  so  far  as  to 
consider  Christ  identical  with  the  God  who  had  personal 
intercourse  with  the  Patriarchs  and  Prophets,  but  not 
with   the   Absolute   Deity. 

The  danger  of  this  direction  of  thought,  however,  is 
apparent.  If  there  is  a  God  on  earth  (Logos)  and  another 
in  heaven  (Jehovah),  why  then  are  there  not  two  Gods? 
That  this  conclusion  was  actually  drawn  by  many  is  shown, 
among  other  places,  by  a  curious  passage  from  Theophilus, 
Bishop  of  Antioch  from  168  to  183,  a  Pagan  by  birth  like 
Justin,  and  writing  soon  after  him.  He  refers  to  the  crea- 
tion of  Eve  as  proving  that  God  is  one,  not  many,  and 
says  :  "  God  foreknew  that  men  would  call  upon  a  number 
of  gods ;  lest  then  it  should  be  supposed  that  one  God 
made  man,  another  woman,  therefore  he  made  them  both 
together,  the  woman  with  the  man."2 

About  this  time,  too,  and  in  the  same  interest,  appeared 
the  "Clementine  Homilies,"  of  which  I  have  already  spok- 
en,3 a  species  of  religious  romance  in  which  the  two  dis- 
putants, Peter  and  Simon,  stand  unquestionably  for  Peter 
and  Paul,  the  writer  not  quite  venturing  to  attack  Paul  by 
name.  Simon  opens  the  discussion  by  insisting  that  the 
Jewish  Scriptures  distinctly  teach  that  there  are  many 
gods ;  giving  as  proofs,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image." 
" Behold,  he  is  become  as  one  of  us" 4     " Thou  shalt  not 

1  Jus.  Martyr's  Works,  p.  158.  2  Theophilus  to  Autolycus,  ii.  28. 
3  Lecture  i.  4  Gen.  i.  26 ;  iii.  22.  5  Ex.  xxii.  28. 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.  39 

revile  the  gods." ]  "  The  Lord  your  God  is  God  of  gods." 2 
Peter  replies  by  saying  with  great  frankness,  "  Each  one 
finds  in  Scripture  whatever  opinion  he  wishes  in  regard  to 
God  j  "  but,  "  I  accept  no  other  God  but  Him  who  created 
me."8  "One  is  He,  who  said  to  his  Wisdom,  'Let  us 
make  man.'  "  4  "  Wisdom  is  united  as  soul  to  God."  5 
"  Our  Lord  did  not  proclaim  himself  to  be  God,  but 
proclaimed  him  blessed  who  called  him  Son  of  God."6 
"  What  is  begotten  cannot  be  compared  with  the  unbegot- 
ten  or  self-begotten."  7  "  Men  are  of  the  same  substance 
as  God,  but  not  gods."  "What  great  matter  then  for 
Christ  to  be  called  God?  for  he  has  only  what  all  have."  8 
"  Two  things  boundless  cannot  coexist." 

Irenaeus,9  who  wrote  at  about  the  same  period,  declares 
that  "  Those  who  assert  that  Jesus  was  mere  man,  begotten 
by  Joseph,  are  in  a  state  of  death."  10  Irenaeus,  however, 
like  some  other  writers  of  this  and  the  following  generation, 
found  his  chief  opponents,  not  among  the  Jewish  party,  but 
among  the  Gnostics ;  a  sect,  or  succession  of  sects,  which 
it  is  very  difficult  to  characterize,  and  whose  origin  is  un- 
certain, yet  whose  influence  upon  Christianity  during  the 
second  and  third  centuries  is  very  marked.  Beginning 
independently  of  Christianity,  and  introducing  its  spec- 
ulations into  all  the  religions  of  the  day,  Gnosticism 
appropriated  also  the  facts  and  truths  of  Christianity  to 
itself,  and  came  to  its  full  development  within  the  Christian 

1  Deut.  x.  17.  2  Clem.  Horn  p.  10.        8  p.  11.        4  p.  12. 

5  p.  15.  6  p.  16.  ''  p.  16.        8  p.  17. 

9  Died  about  202.     10  Irenaeus  ag.  Heresies,  iii.  19. 


40  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

church.1  Its  fundamental  principle  being,  apparently,  the 
eternal  antagonism  of  spirit  and  matter,  and  the  complete 
separation  therefore  of  God  from  the  world,  its  immediate 
influence  upon  Christianity  showed  itself  chiefly  in  a  ten- 
dency to  melt  away  the  outward  circumstances  of  Christ's 
life,  and  etherialize  his  word,  until,  according  to  the  views 
of  the  Fathers,  nothing  specifically  Christian  remained. 
It  also  brought  a  new  interpretation  to  bear  upon  the 
doctrine  of  the  Logos,  which  threatened,  unless  resisted, 
to  place  God  and  Christ  farther  than  ever  apart.  So  at 
least  many  of  the  Fathers  felt,  as  we  judge  from  the  bitter 
denunciations  contained  in  the  writings  of  this  period 
against  those  who  teach  that  there  are  two  gods,  not  one ; 
and  it  is  to  this  that  Irenaeus  refers  in  the  following  pas- 
sage :  "  John  teaches  that  there  is  but  one  God,  who  made 
all  things  by  his  Word ;  they  allegorize  that  the  Creator 
was  one,  the  Father  of  the  Lord  another ;  the  Son  of  the 
Creator  one,  but  Christ  from  above  another."  2  To  put 
this  Gnostic  thought  in  plain  terms  :  Jesus  was  the  Son  of 
the  God  who  made  the  earth ;  but  above  that  God  was  the 
Supreme  God  from  whom  came  the  Word,  which  entered 
into  the  visible  Jesus  and  made  him  Christ. 

Almost  contemporary  with  Irenaeus  was  the  Carthaginian 
Tertullian,8  who  attacked,  among  other  errors,  the  tendency 
of  Gnosticism,  hardly  less  dangerous  than  its  Dualism, 
to  elevate  idea  above  reality,  and  entirely  subordinate  the 
outward  form  and  historical  incidents  of  Christianity  to 

1  Baur's  Chris,  i.  161 ;  Hase's  Hist,  of  Chris.  Church,  p.  76. 

2  "  Against  Heresies,"  i.  287.  8  About  a.  d.  i  50  to  220. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  4 1 

the  inward  spiritual  principle.1  Hence  the  sect  called  the 
Docetae ;  who  held  that  there  was  no  real  Jesus,  but  only 
a  seeming  person,  his  body  being,  not  flesh  and  blood,  but 
a  phantasm.  Some  theory  of  this  kind  was  plainly  current 
before  the  New  Testament  was  finished :  "  Every  spirit 
that  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh  is 
of  God,  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  has  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God." 2  In  Tertul- 
lian's  time  the  chief  representative  of  this  sect  seems  to 
have  been  Marcion,  whom  Tertullian  charges  with  saying  : 
"  Away  with  that  plaguy  taxing  of  Caesar,  and  the  scanty 
inn,  and  the  squalid  swaddling-clothes,  and  the  hard  stable. 
We  do  not  care  a  jot  for  that  multitude  of  the  heavenly 
host  who  praised  their  God  at  night.  Let  the  shepherds 
take  better  care  of  their  flock,  and  let  the  wise  men  spare 
their  legs  so  long  a  journey.  Let  Herod  too  mend  his 
manners."  8  These  jeers  are  silenced  by  proving,  or  de- 
claring, that  the  "  flesh  of  Christ  is  precisely  as  our  flesh ;  " 
that  "  Christ  is  man's  flesh  with  God's  spirit." 4  In  de- 
fence of  this,  Tertullian  quotes  Matthew,  Romans,  and  Gal- 
atians,5  and  disposes  of  Marcion,  in  true  theological  style, 
by  calling  him  "  fouler  than  any  Scythian."  According  to 
Tertullian,  the  greater  number  of  believers  still  held  Christ 
to  be  a  man,  on  the  ground  that  to  call  him  God  was  to 
have  two  gods.  "Common  people,"  he  says,  "think  of 
Christ  as  a  man."  6  "The  simple,  who  constitute  the  ma- 
jority of  the  believers,  are  startled  on  the  ground  that  their 

1  Comp.  Baur's  Christenthum,  i.  213.  2  1  John,  iv.  2,  3. 

8  Tertullian,  ii.  165.        4  p.  201.        8  p.  210.        6  i.  91. 


42  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

rule  of  faith  withdraws  them  from  the  world's  plurality 
of  gods  to  the  one  only  true  God."1  "We  worship  God 
through  Christ.     Count  Christ  a  man  if  you  please."  2 

Tertullian  is  of  chief  interest  to  us,  however,  as  being 
the  first,  apparently,  to  introduce  the  name  or  idea  of  a 
trinity  into  Christian  theology.8  Many  Christian  writers 
before  Tertullian,  as  we  have  seen,  had  spoken  of  the  Son 
as  partaking  of  the  divine  nature,  and  being  in  a  certain 
sense  God,  though  always  subordinate  to  the  Supreme 
Being  ;  many  had  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  but  of  a 
threefold  form  of  Deity,  or  of  any  trinity  in  the  divine 
essence,  they  had  been  as  silent  as  are  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  It  is  curious,  too,  to  see,  even  when  the 
thought  once  suggested  itself,  how  incidentally  it  arose, 
and  how  little  impression  it  seemed  to  make  upon  the 
mind  that  originated  it.  No  one  could  be  less  aware  than 
Tertullian  that  the  new  word  he  was  using  was  to  be  on 
men's  lips  for  centuries  as  the  central  mystery  of  the 
Christian  faith.  In  answer  to  one  Praxeas,  who  declared 
that  Christ  being  God,  "  it  was  God  himself  who  was  born 
of  the  Virgin,"  Tertullian  was  led  to  define  his  faith  more 
closely :  "  We  believe  there  is  only  one  God ;  that  this 
one  only  God  has  also  a  Son,  His  Word,  who  proceeded 

1  Tertullian,  ii.  338.  2  i.  96. 

8  The  idea  was  already  familiar  to  both  Oriental  and  Greek 
thought.  See  Neander's  Dogmas,  i.  131,  132, 173.  The  Greek  term 
rpids,  according  to  Hagenbach  (Hist,  of  Doctrines,  i.  129),  was 
first  applied  to  Christian  theology  by  Theophilus  of  Antioch 
(a.  d.  170  or  180),  whose  trias  consisted  of  6e6s,  \6yos,  ao<pia. 
(Theoph.  to  Autol.  ii.  15.) 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING  CHRIST.  43 

from  himself,  and  by  whom  all  things  were  made.  Him 
to  have  been  sent  by  the  Father  into  the  Virgin,  and  to 
have  been  born  of  her,  being  both  man  and  God,  and  to 
have  been  called  by  name  Jesus  Christ.  He  sent  also 
from  heaven  the  Holy  Ghost,  sanctifier  of  those  who  be- 
lieve in  the  Father,  and  in  the  Son,  and  in  the  Holy 
Ghost." x  Soon  after  he  adds,  to  show  that  the  unity  of 
the  divine  nature  is  not  disturbed,  "  All  these  are  of  One, 
by  unity  of  substance,  while  the  mystery  is  still  guarded 
which  distributes  the  unity  into  a  trinity,  placing  in  their 
order  the  three,  —  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost."  2  How 
far  this  apparently  accidental  thought  was  from  taking  the 
full  shape  of  later  times,  is  shown  by  various  passages 
which  follow :  "  My  assertion  is,  that  the  Father  is  one, 
and  the  Son  one,  and  the  Spirit  one,  and  that  they  are 
distinct  from  each  other ;  yet  not  by  way  of  diversity,  but 
by  distribution ;  "  "  The  Father  is  entire  Substance,  the 
Son  derived  and  subordinate  j  " 3  "  The  Father  is  not  Son, 
as  day  is  not  night ; "  "In  order  to  be  a  husband,  I  must 
have  a  wife ;  can  never  myself  be  my  own  wife." 4  "I 
and  my  Father  are  one,"  according  to  Tertullian,  means, 
not  one  person,  but  "one  thing."5  As  analogies  of  the 
trinity  of  which  he  speaks,  he  gives  root,  tree,  and  fruit ; 
fountain,  stream,  branch ;  sun,  ray,  and  apex.6 

About  a.  d.  200,  then,  the  conception  of  a  trinity  found 
its  way  into  Christian  speculation. 

So  far  was  this,  however,  from  satisfying  the  Christian 

1  Adv.  Praxeas,  ii.  336.  2  p.  337.  3  p.  349. 

4  P-  35i-  5  P.  383-  6  P-  348. 


44  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

mind  at  once,  or  making  any  immediate  impression  upon 
religious  controversy,  that  less  than  fifty  years  after  Tertul- 
lian  wrote,  a  fourfold  conception  of  the  divine  nature 
appeared  in  place  of  the  threefold.  For  some  time  it 
remained  doubtful  whether  the  great  mystery  would  find 
its  solution  in  a  trinity  or  a  quaternity.  According  to 
Sabellius,  probably  a  presbyter  in  the  church  about  a.  d- 
250,  and  writing  with  the  same  authority  as  Tertullian, 
behind  the  trias  (or  trinity),  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit,  is  the  Monas  (or  Word)  itself,  of  which  the  trias 
is  only  an  expression.  The  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
are  successive  phases  of  the  Supreme  Deity.  Christ  was 
only  a  transient  form  of  the  manifestation  of  the  Logos ; 
"went  forth  as  a  ray  and  was  withdrawn."  In  the  end, 
the  trias  is  to  resolve  itself  back  into  the  Monas.  The 
trinity  is  transient ;  the  unity  permanent.1 

Almost  contemporary  with  Sabellius  was  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata,  Bishop  of  Antioch  from  260  to  269,  who  is  interest- 
ing to  us,  as  making  prominent  once  more  the  human 
personality  of  Christ,  which  seemed  in  so  much  danger  of 
being  wholly  forgotten.  According  to  Paul,  Christ  was  a 
man,  and  was  exalted  to  peculiar  union  with  the  divine 
nature  by  the  illumination  of  divine  Wisdom.  "  Wisdom 
dwelt  in  Christ  as  in  no  other."  "  The  Logos  came  down 
to  impart  itself  to  Christ,  then  rose  again  to  the  Father." 
"  Christ  was  not  God  by  nature,  but  became  so  by  pro- 

1  Neander,  i.  594-601 ;  Baur,  i.  312-315.  Theophilus  of  Antioch 
also  adds  immediately  to  his  trias  a  fourth  member,  man ;  thus 
presenting  the  divine  essence  as  God,  Word,  Wisdom,  Man. 
(Theoph.  to  Autol.  ii.  15.) 


EARLY  VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  45 

gressive  development."  1  Paul  was  deposed  in  269,  and 
his  name  was  afterwards  the  synonym  for  heresy  in  the 
church.  Eusebius,  writing  in  the  next  century,  says  of 
him,  "He  entertained  low  and  degrading  views  of  Christ, 
and  taught  that  he  was  in  nature  but  a  common  man."  2 

A  second  champion  of  the  Trinity  appeared  in  Origen, 
greatest  of  the  Fathers,  yet  one  whom  Orthodoxy  is  very 
wary  in  claiming.3  Origen  seemed  to  come  upon  the 
idea  of  a  trinity  as  accidentally  as  Tertullian,  and  dwelt 
quite  as  little  upon  it,  declaring  indeed  that  the  position  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  in  relation  to  the  Father  and  Son  "  needs 
to  be  inquired  into."  4  The  thought  seems  to  have  struck 
him  first  in  connection  with  the  baptismal  formula,  of 
which  he  says,  "  Indeed,  the  person  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
of  such  dignity  that  baptism  was  not  complete  but  by  au- 
thority of  the  most  excellent  trinity  of  them  all."  5  Ori- 
gen's view  differed  from  preceding  theories  in  this.  The 
Son,  as  he  conceived,  though  distinct  from  the  Father  and 
subordinate  to  him,  yet  shares  his  absolute  being  in  having 
been  evolved  out  of  the  Father,  not  at  any  special  time, 
but  eternally.  God,  whether  as  Creator  or  as  Father,  must 
be  what  he  is  eternally.  The  eternal  necessity  of  the 
Father  creates  the  eternal  Son.6 

Without  quoting  from  Origen  further,  I  cannot  take 
leave  of  him  without  calling  attention  to  one  delightful 
trait  which  characterizes  him  almost  alone  among  eccle- 

1  Neander,  i.  601-605.  2  Euseb.  Ecc.  Hist.  p.  286. 

8  Died  about  254.  4  Origen's  Works,  i.  2. 

5  Origen's  Works,  i.  34.  6  Comp.  Baur's  Christenthum,  i.  340. 


46  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

siastical  writers.  On  whatever  point  he  is  speaking,  the 
moment  he  has  told  us  all  that  Church  or  Scripture  has  to 
say,  he  adds  with  the  utmost  simplicity  :  "  Beyond  this  the 
church  doctrine  is  not  settled,"  or  "  On  these  matters 
there  is  not  sufficient  clearness  in  the  teachings  of  the 
church,"  or  "  Here  the  Scriptures  give  no  light." x  Nor 
can  I  refrain  from  quoting,  as  I  close,  this  one  character- 
istic and  noble  passage  :  "God  is  incomprehensible.  What- 
ever be  the  knowledge  we  are  able  to  obtain  of  him,  either 
by  perception  or  by  reflection,  we  must  of  necessity  believe 
that  he  is  by  many  degrees  better  than  what  we  perceive 
him  to  be."  2 

I  stop  here  abruptly ;  not  because  the  position  or  doc- 
trine of  Origen  constitutes  a  turning-point  in  Christian  his- 
tory, but  because  almost  immediately  alter  Origen's  death, 
and  partly  in  consequence  of  his  teachings,  the  great  con- 
test arose  which  ended  in  the  first  formal  and  authoritative 
enunciation  of  Christian  doctrine.  Meantime,  I  trust  that 
in  this  somewhat  hasty  survey  of  the  first  three  centuries, 
the  following  points  have  been  made  clear  :  t- 

First.  That  the  doctrine  of  the  Christian  church  con- 
cerning Christ  was  not  less  than  three  centuries  in  forming. 

Second.  That  during  this  period  the  range  of  beliefs 
and  ideas  concerning  him  was  as  wide  as  now,  with  this 
difference ;  that  then  these  beliefs  were  all  equally  ortho- 
dox, and  one  as  likely  as  the  other  to  prevail. 

1  Origen's  Works,  i.  3-7.  a  i.  n. 


EARLY   VIEWS   CONCERNING   CHRIST.  47 

Third.  That  the  origin  of  the  controversy  is  to  be 
found,  to  go  no  further  back,  in  the  two  different  views 
of  Christ's  nature  which  appeared  in  the  New  Testament 
itself,  and  divided  the  church  at  the  beginning. 

Fourth.  That  in  drawing  its  converts  so  much  more 
largely  from  the  Gentile  than  from  the  Jewish  world,  Chris- 
tianity received  inevitably  the  impress  of  Gentile  thought, 
and  that  its  later  growth  was,  in  great  measure,  determined 
by  this  fact. 

Finally.  That  in  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  two 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  it  was  still  doubt- 
ful, and  only  to  be  settled  by  an  imperial  council,  whether 
the  Christian  church  should  regard  its  founder  as  a  man 
among  men,  or  as  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

January  4,  1874. 


III. 


ARIANISM   AND   THE   COUNCIL  OF 
NICE  A. 

np*HE  last  lecture,  although  bringing  down  the  contro- 
-*■  versy  concerning  Christ's  nature  beyond  the  middle 
of  the  third  century,  left  the  great  question  still  undecided. 
The  Christian  world,  more  and  more  forgetful  of  its  Jewish 
antecedents,  impregnated  with  Greek  thought,  and  grow- 
ing familiar  with  the  current  ideas  and  terms  of  religious 
philosophy,  had  learned  to  call  Christ  God,  but  had  as  yet 
gone  no  further.  The  term  God  in  those  days  being  con- 
stantly used  to  mean  simply  a  divine  being,  the  question 
still  remained  in  what  sense  Christ  was  God,  and,  if  God, 
in  what  relation  he  stood  to  the  Supreme  Deity.  So  far  as 
this  question  was  concerned,  the  two  centuries  had  been 
spent,  as  we  have  seen,  in  showing  how  Christ  was  God, 
without  on  the  one  hand  making  his  humanity  a  shadow, 
or,  on  the  other  hand,  making  two  gods.  How  serious 
both  these  dangers  were  then  considered,  the  quotations 
already  given  have  amply  proved.  We  are  now  to  see 
how  the  controversy  reached  its  first  solution.;  and  how, 
out  of  such  conflicting  ideas,  the  first  specific  doctrine 
was  enunciated  concerning  the  relation  of  Christ  to  God. 


THE   COUNCIL  OF  NICEA.  49 

It  was  quite  in  character  that  the  agitation  which  was 
so  profoundly  to  affect  the  Christian  church  should  begin 
in  Alexandria,  the  source  of  so  much  of  the  philosophical 
and  religious  speculation  which  acted  upon  early  Chris- 
tianity. As  in  still  remoter  ages  Egyptian  faith  profoundly 
modified  and  re-created  Judaism,  so  in  these  later  days, 
the  Greek  faith,  which  had  planted  itself  in  Egypt,  was 
to  profoundly  modify,  and  almost  re-create,  Christianity. 
This  happened  as  follows  :  — 

In  Alexandria,  in  the  year  318,  a  heated  theological 
controversy  arose  between  the  Bishop  Alexander  and  one 
of  his  presbyters  named  Arius,  whom  he  charged,  in  a 
public  gathering  of  his  clergy,  with  holding  false  doctrines 
concerning  Christ.  Arius  retorted  by  accusing  the  bishop 
of  Sabellianism,  and  defending  his  own  views  as  more  logi- 
cal and  orthodox.  The  excitement  arising  from  this  dis- 
pute became  so  intense,  and  the  rebellious  priest  found 
so  many  supporters  in  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Palestine,  that 
in  321  Alexander  summoned  a  Synod  of  Egyptian  and 
Libyan  bishops,  by  whom  Arius  was  formally  deposed 
and  excommunicated.  Says  Alexander,  in  writing  to  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople :  "  Arius  and  Achillas  have 
formed  a  conspiracy ;  they  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and  declare  him  on  a  level  with  other  men,  asserting  that 
we  also  are  able  to  become,  like  him,  the  Son  of  God."  l 
And  again,  in  a  circular  letter  to  the  churches,  Alex- 
ander says  :  "  In  our  diocese,  certain  lawless  and  anti- 
christian  men  have  arisen  teaching  apostasy ;  forerunners 

1  Theodoret's  Eccl.  History,  p.  17. 
4 


50  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

of  antichrist."    "  This  is  the  execrable  character  of  their 
heresy/'  &C.1 

After  this  somewhat  formidable  introduction  of  the 
great  heretic,  we  are  a  little  surprised,  on  turning  to  Arius 
himself,  to  find  how  innocent  both  the  man  and  his  doc- 
trines seem.  Arius,  if  we  may  judge  from  this  distance, 
was  not  even  an  agitator;  and,  so  far  from  wishing  to 
change  the  belief  of  the  Christian  church,  he  was  em- 
ployed, as  he  thought,  in  guarding  the  church  from  the 
entrance  of  error.  He  was  a  parish  priest  of  ascetic  habits 
and  intellectual  tastes,  who,  amid  the  conflicting  and  un- 
settled theological  opinions  of  the  day,  had  adopted  those 
doctrines  which  seemed  to  him  the  most  faithful  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture  truth,  and  which,  of  course,  in  the 
absence  of  any  authoritative  dogmas,  had  the  same  title 
to  respect  as  those  of  his  opponents.  So  little  did  he 
consider  himself  broaching  any  new  or  revolutionary 
theory  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  charged  his  bishop,  as  we 
have  seen,  with  sharing  the  errors  of  Sabellius ;  and  ad- 
dressed a  sympathizing  bishop,  to  whom  he  wrote  an  ac- 
count of  his  troubles,  as  "  most  faithful  and  orthodox 
Eusebius."  In  the  same  letter,  too,  he  said  of  certain 
opponents  with  conscious  or  unconscious  humor  :  "  These 
have  embraced  heretical  opinions. .  One  says  the  Son  is 
an  effusion,  another  that  he  is  an  emission,  the  other  that 
he  is  unbegotten.  These  are  impieties  to  which  we  could 
not  listen  though  the  heretics  should  threaten  us  with  a 
thousand  deaths."  2 

1  Socrates's  Eccl.  History,  p.  8.         2  Theodoret,  p.  27. 


THE   COUNCIL   OF  NICyEA.  5 1 

Nor  to  our  modern  thought  would  there  seem  to  be 
anything  very  dangerous  in  his  doctrines  themselves,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge  them  from  the  fragmentary  remains 
of  his  writings  which  the  Church  has  chosen  to  preserve. 
Like  many  of  his  predecessors,  whom  the  Church  has 
judged  less  harshly,  Arius  saw  the  great  danger  of  making 
Christ  so  absolutely  equal  with  God  that  there  would  be 
two  gods  ;  a  tendency  against  which  he  struggled  as  per- 
sistently as  had  either  Tertullian,  or  Irenaeus,  or  Origen 
before  him.  His  exact  feeling  in  this  matter  shows  itself, 
and  the  religious  tendency  which  he  was  opposing  appears, 
in  such  passages  as  these  :  "  We  must  either  suppose  two 
divine  original  essences,  without  beginning  and  independ- 
ent of  each  other,  a  Dyarchy,  or  we  must  not  shrink  from 
asserting  that  the  Logos  had  a  beginning  of  his  existence  ; 
that  there  was  a  moment  when  he  did  not,  as  yet,  exist."  l 
"  We  are  persecuted,"  he  says  in  his  letter  to  Eusebius, 
"  because  we  say  that  the  Son  had  a  beginning,  but  that 
God  was  without  beginning ;  and  that  the  Son  was  created 
out  of  nothing." 2  "We  say  and  believe  that  the  Son  is 
not  unbegotten,  but  that  he  has  subsisted  before  all  time, 
and  before  ages,  as  perfect  God,  only-begotten  and  un- 
changeable, and  that  he  existed  not  before  he  was  be- 
gotten."8 "The  bishop  has  driven  us  out  of  the  city  as 
Atheists,  because  we  do  not  concur  in  what  he  preaches, 
namely,  that  the  Son  is  unbegotten  as  the  Father ;  that  he 
is  always  being  begotten,  without  having  been  begotten."4 

1  Quoted  by  Neander,  Hist.  ii.  361.  2  Theod.  p.  30 

8  Id.  *  Id. 


52  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

To  put  the  Arian  heresy,  with  the  process  of  reasoning 
which  led  to  it,  into  the  fewest  words,  it  seems  to  have 
been  this  :  God  is  unbegotten.  He  is  God  because  he  is 
unbegotten.  Whoever  is  born  out  of  another  shares  all 
his  qualities.  If  Christ  then  were  born  (begotten)  of  God 
in  literal  sense,  he  would  share,  among  other  divine  qual- 
ities, the  quality  of  unbegottenness  ;  would  be  himself  un- 
begotten. Then  we  should  have  two  Unbegottens ;  two 
Absolutes  j  which  is  impossible.  Consequently  Christ  was 
not  begotten,  but  was  created ;  created  before  all  time 
indeed,  yet  not  before  eternity;  created  not  out  of  the 
Father's  being,  but  out  of  the  only  other  thing  possible ; 
out  of  nothing.1 

So  subtle  and  purely  abstract  were  the  doctrines  which 
convulsed  Christendom  when  doctrines  were  forming, 
fifteen  hundred  years  ago.  So  easily  could  one  still  speak 
of  Christ  as  God  without  being  supposed  to  mean  Deity. 
Nothing  would  seem  more  unlikely  to  divide  the  Christian 
church  than  this  metaphysical  dispute  whether  the  Logos 
was  "  created  "  or  was  "  eternally  born."  What  might 
have  resulted  from  the  controversy  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances, we  cannot  tell.  Possibly  it  would  have  died  of 
itself  within  that  generation,  like  the  hundred  equally  im- 
portant disputes  which  had  preceded  it,  and  would  have 
been  remembered  in  history  simply  as  the  quarrel  of  two 
angry  priests,  but  for  an  entirely  new  element  that  entered, 
just  at  this  juncture,  into  theological  polemics.  This  was 
the  political  element ;  or,  more  exactly,  the  imperial.  For 
1  Comp.  Baur,  i.  344. 


THE   COUNCIL  OF  NICvEA.  53 

the  first  time  in  the  history  of  Christianity,  there  was  a 
Christian  emperor  j  and,  as  it  happened,  an  emperor  as 
ambitious  to  distinguish  himself  in  the  religious  as  he  was 
in  the  civil  affairs  of  his  realm. 

Constantine,  who  succeeded  to  the  western  throne  in 
306,  and  became  sole  emperor  in  323,  on  coming  to  Con- 
stantinople to  make  his  capital  there,  and  give  the  city  its 
name,  found  the  Eastern  church  already  divided  by  the 
Arian  strife,  and  the  Christian  religion,  which  he  had  lately 
adopted  with  so  much  pomp,  the  subject  of  popular  ridi- 
cule in  the  theatres.1  Taking  the  matter  in  hand  at  once, 
as  an  affair  which  it  needed  but  a  word  from  an  emperor 
to  settle,  he  wrote  to  the  two  combatants  an  imperial  letter, 
telling  them  that  the  matter  in  dispute  was  "of  small  or 
scarcely  least  importance,"  that  "there  was  no  unvarying 
standard  of  judgment  in  us,"  that  the  Scripture  passages 
in  question  were  "  inexplicable  "  at  best,  and  that  there 
was  nothing  "  to  prevent  their  communion  with  each 
other." 2  Wise  words,  which  would  have  spoken  well  for 
his  judgment  and  insight  had  he  not  so  soon  forgotten 
them. 

As  the  quarrel  continued  to  rage  in  spite  of  his  appeal, 
the  emperor  determined  to  summon  together  all  the 
bishops  of  the  church  to  determine  the  theological  ques- 
tions involved.  Hence,  in  325,  the  Council  of  Nicsea, 
not  the  first  Christian  council,  as  local  gatherings  had  al- 
ready been  held  in  different  dioceses,  but  the  first  universal 
or  (Ecumenical  Council  j  as,  indeed,  it  was  the  first  moment 

1  Socrat.  p.  11.  2  p.  15. 


54  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY. 

in  the  history  of  the  church  when  any  authority  had  existed 
competent  to  convene  a  general  council.  The  church, 
for  the  first  time,  had  a  head ;  and  for  the  first  time  since 
Paul  and  Barnabas  were  summoned  from  Antioch  to  Jeru- 
salem, it  met  to  determine  its  theological  beliefs. 

Indeed,  Constantine  seems  to  have  been,  in  very  fact, 
the  head  of  the  Nicsean  Council ;  was  quite  conscious  of 
the  dignity  of  his  position,  and  conducted  affairs  in  im- 
perial style  throughout.  He  summoned  the  bishops,  he 
appointed  the  place,  he  assigned  a  hall  in  his  own  palace 
for  their  gathering,  he  entertained  them  during  their  whole 
stay,  he  seated  the  more  conspicuous  prelates  at  his  own 
table,  he  entered  the  council- chamber  in  the  full  splendor 
of  purple  robe  and  imperial  diadem,  dazzling  the  un- 
accustomed eyes  of  provincial  bishops,1  he  took  constant 
and  active  part  in  the  proceedings,2  he  argued  the  pro- 
foundest  theological  points  with  the  most  learned  bishops, 
so  explaining  away  the  difficulties  of  the  Nicaean  creed, 
as  Eusebius  of  Cassarea  himself  assures  us,  that  he  for  one 
was  willing  to  sign  it,3  he  produced  in  the  end  a  degree 
of  unanimity  among  the  three  hundred  members  of  the 
council,  which  it  is  safe  to  say  never  existed  among  an 
equal  number  of  excited  theologians  before  or  since.  In- 
deed, not  even  after  the  council  had  ended,  could  the 
emperor  quench  his  new-born  theologic  zeal,  or  surrender 
the  novel  delight  of  debating  such  lofty  themes.  No 
sooner  had  the  bishops  scattered  to  their  homes  than  a 
series  of  imperial  letters  followed  them.  He  wrote  to  the 
1  Stanley's  East.  Church,  p.  213.       2  p.  219.       8  Theod.  p.  45. 


THE   COUNCIL  OF  NICEA.  *     55 

Bishop  of  Alexandria,  denouncing  as  "  blasphemies  against 
the  Savior " 1  the  identical  doctrines  which  before  the 
council  he  had  declared  "  of  small  or  scarcely  least  im- 
portance ;  "  he  wrote  a  second  letter,  ordering  Arius's 
books  to  be  burned,  and  those  who  read  them  to  be 
put  to  death ;  he  wrote  a  third  letter  fixing  the  doctrine 
concerning  Easter;  he  wrote  a  fourth  letter  concern- 
ing church-buildings  which  he  feared  would  fall  into 
neglect;  he  wrote  a  fifth  letter  expressing  his  anxiety 
about  Christ's  sepulchre ;  he  wrote,  as  Socrates  tells  us, 
"  other  letters  of  a  more  oratorical  character  against  Arius, 
exposing  him  and  his  doctrines  to  ridicule."  2 

To  return  to  the  council  itself;  the  descriptions  show 
it  to  have  been  a  singular  gathering,  including  all  possi- 
ble shades  of  culture,  training,  and  belief.  Some  features 
were  evidently  peculiar  to  the  times,  some  remind  us  at 
once  of  the  theological  gatherings  of  to-day.  Here  is  a 
description  which  has  a  singularly  familiar  sound  :  "  A 
man  was  there  of  unsophisticated  understanding,  who  re- 
proved the  disputants,  saying,  '  Christ  did  not  teach  us 
the  dialectic  art,  nor  vain  subtleties,  but  simple-minded- 
ness.' " 3  One  Ascesius  there  was  also,  a  Novatian,  as 
tenacious  of  the  doctrines  of  his  sect  as  any  Puritan  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  to  whom  Constantine,  after  trying  in 
vain  to  soften  his  rigor,  finally  said,  "  Ho,  ho  !  Ascesius  ; 
plant  a  ladder  and  climb  up  into  heaven  by  yourself;"4 
an  incident  which  gives  Gibbon  a  chance  to  remark, 
"  Most  of  the  Christian  sects  have,  by  turns,  borrowed  the 

1  Soc.  p.  30.         2  pp.  30-38.         8  p.  18.         *  Stanley,  p.  270. 


56     *  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

ladder  of  Ascesius." *  Nor  would  the  description  of  the 
council  be  complete  without  the  mention  of  Athanasius, 
the  young  deacon  of  the  Alexandrian  church,  who,  not- 
withstanding his  subordinate  position,  was  yet  from  the 
first  the  recognized  leader  of  the  anti-Arian  movement. 
He  had  already  been  the  prominent  opponent  of  Arius  at 
Alexandria,  and  took  now  a  prominent  part  in  framing 
the  creed,  while  his  great  theological  ability,  together  with 
his  unyielding  hostility  to  Arianism  when  afterwards  Bishop 
of  Alexandria,  has  associated  his  name  with  the  whole 
controversy  as  closely  as  that  of  Arius  himself. 

Of  the  discussions  of  the  council,  and  the  arguments  by 
which  the  result  was  reached,  no  account  remains ;  not- 
withstanding the  fact  that  one  of  the  prominent  actors  in 
the  debate,  Eusebius  of  Csesarea,  was  the  author  of  an 
ecclesiastical  history,  which  he  must  have  finished  after 
these  events,  but  which  he  brings  to  a  close  the  very  year 
before  the  council  was  held.  Apparently  there  was  not 
much  in  the  proceedings  which  an  ecclesiastical  historian 
cared  to  record.  The  character  of  the  debates  of  these 
theologians  is  indicated  in  a  measure  by  the  following  pas- 
sages from  Theodoret,  who  wrote  his  history  before  the 
close  of  the  same  century  :  — 

"Arius  and  his  friends  drew  up  a  creed  which  was  torn 
in  pieces."2 

"  The  formulary  of  Eusebius  was  brought  forth,  which 
contained  undisguised  evidences  of  his  blasphemy.  The 
impious  writing  was  torn  up." 8 

1  Dec.  and  Fall,  iii.  3,  n.        2  Theodoret,  iii.  p.  32.         3  p.  33. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICEA.  57 

The  only  question  with  these  disputants  seemed  to  be, 
which  creed  should  remain  untorn. 

This  creed  of  Eusebius,  as  we  learn  from  his  own  ac- 
count, was  an  inoffensive  document,  drawn  up  almost  en- 
tirely in  Scripture  phraseology,  and  brought  forward  as  a 
compromise  measure ;  asserting  positively  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  yet  avoiding  such  expressions  as  were  needlessly 
offensive  to  the  Arians.1  At  first,  owing  to  the  high  honor 
in  which  Eusebius  was  held,  as  well  as  the  warm  support 
of  the  emperor,  it  seemed  likely  to  succeed.  No  one  ob- 
jected to  it ;  but  unfortunately  it  was  so  eagerly  accepted 
by  the  Arians  that  their  opponents  grew  suspicious,  and 
concluded,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  document  was 
"  impious." 

At  last  a  creed  was  framed  that  was  not  torn.  It  origi- 
nated in  this  singular  way.  During  the  debate  over  the 
formulary  of  Eusebius,  a  letter  from  one  of  the  foremost 
Arians  had  been  produced,  containing  this  expression : 
"  To  say  that  the  Son  is  of  one  substance  with  the  Father 
is  evidently  absurd."  2  The  letter  of  course  was  torn  in 
pieces  on  the  spot ;  but  the  objectionable  phrase  was  re- 
membered. "  Any  expression,"  argued  the  opponents  of 
Arius,  "  which  is  especially  offensive  to  the  Arians,  is  on 
that  very  account  the  word  to  be  embodied  in  our  creed. 
If  to  them  the  phrase  '  of  one  substance  '  is  hateful,  it  is  the 
very  phrase  we  want.  It  will  be  sure  to  expel  them  from 
the  church." 

Such,  at  least,  was  the  principle  upon  which  the  majority 
1  Nean.  ii.  373.  2  Stanley,  p.  228. 


58  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

immediately  .acted.  The  phrase  in  question  did  not  cover 
the  actual  point  of  the  controversy,  or  solve  the  questions 
so  long  at  issue  ;  it  had  not  been  thought  of  in  advance  ; 
it  expressed  the  full  belief  of  no  single  party  of  the  coun- 
cil ;  it  was  not  even  a  Scripture  phrase,  nor  had  it  the  sanc- 
tion of  any  of  the  Fathers  of  the  church,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  had  been  pronounced  heretical  within  half  a 
century ;  but  it  was  one  of  the  few  doctrines  on  which  the 
majority  could  unite,  it  was  a  tenn  into  which  both  the 
Sabellian  and  the  tritheistic  party  could  put  what  meaning 
they  chose,  and  above  all,  it  had  been  condemned  by  the 
Arians  in  advance,  and  therefore  it  was  accepted.1  The 
term  "  of  one  substance  "  (homoousios)  was  incorporated 
into  the  Nicsean  creed  and  became  its  one  characteristic 
symbol. 

This  being  accomplished,  the  important  work  of  the 
council  was  ended.  The  emperor's  assent  was  easily  ob- 
tained; the  opponents  of  Arius,  of  course,  gave  their 
signatures  readily ;  while  of  the  friends  of  Arius,  only  five 
refused  their  names,  and  of  these  five,  three  were  finally 
persuaded  to  sign.  This  discreditable  fact  speaks  for 
itself,  and  warns  us,  if  we  would  search  for  moral  courage 
and  fidelity  to  conviction,  not  to  go  back  to  the  Christian 
bishops  of  the  fourth  century.  When  out  of  more  than 
three  hundred  theologians  representing  all  shades  and 
antagonisms  of  religious  belief,  all  but  two  give  their  signa- 
tures to  a  creed  which  when  first  proposed  was  met  by  a 
storm  of  angry  dissent,  we  hardly  need  the  explanation 
1  Gibbon,  iii.  21 ;  Stanley,  p.  228. 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NICEA.  59 

given  in  the  naive  confession  of  Eusebius  :  "  The  Emperor 
succeeded  in  bringing  them  into  similarity  of  judgment 
and  conformity  of  opinion  on  all  controverted  points." 1 

The  Nicaean  Creed,  as  adopted  by  the  council,  is  as 
follows  :  — 

"  We  believe  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of 
all  things  both  visible  and  invisible : 

"And  in  one  Lord,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  begot- 
ten of  the  Father,  only-begotten  that  is  to  say,  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father,  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  very 
God  of  very  God,  begotten  not  made,  being  of  one  sub- 
stance with  the  Father,  by  whom  all  things  were  made, 
both  things  in  heaven  and  things  in  earth  —  who  for  us 
men  and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  and  was  made  flesh, 
and  was  made  man,  suifered,  and  rose  again  on  the  third 
day ;  went  up  into  the  heavens,  and  is  come  again  to  judge 
the  quick  and  dead. 

"  And  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

"But  those  that  say,  'there  was  when  He  was  not,'  and 
1  before  He  was  begotten  He  was  not,'  and  that  '-He  came 
into  existence  from  what  was  not,'  or  who  profess  that  the 
Son  of  God  is  of  a  different  person  or  substance,  or  that  he 
is  created  or  changeable,  or  variable,  are  anathematized  by 
the  Catholic  Church."  2 

It  is  idle,  of  course,  to  look  to  this  creed  for  any  ulti- 
mate word  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ.  It  was  not 
the  last  creed  of  Christendom,  it  was  the  first  of  many ; 
a  creed  which  started  more  questions  than  it  answered ; 
a  creed  which  did  not  even  answer  the  one  question  sub- 
1  Soc.  p.  20.  2  Stanley,  p.  233. 


60  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

mitted  to  it.  How  purely  accidental  was  the  form  which 
the  Nicaean  confession  finally  took  could  hardly  be  better 
shown  than  by  this  single  fact.  The  word  homoousios, 
which  constitutes  the  distinctive  feature  of  this  creed,  is 
the  very  term  which  half  a  century  before,1  at  a  synod 
held  at  Antioch  to  deal  with  Paul  of  Samosata,  a  heretic 
of  another  stamp,  was  formally  condemned  as  unorthodox.2 
If  we  wait  thirty  years  longer,3  we  shall  find  the  same  word 
rejected  by  another  council,  on  the  following  singularly 
rational  grounds  :  "  The  term  homoousios  shall  not  be 
used,  because  it  is  not  found  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  and 
because  it  transcends  human  knowledge,  as  none  but  the 
Father  can  know  how  the  Son  was  begotten."  4 

Indeed,  so  far  from  effecting  conformity  or  harmony  in 
the  Christian  church,  the  adoption  of  the  Nicaean  creed 
was  the  occasion  of  more  bitter  and  long-continued  strife 
than  Christendom  had  ever  known.  The  humorous  side 
of  the  theological  condition  which  followed  is  well  shown 
in  this  oft-quoted  passage  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  de- 
scribing what  he  saw  in  Constantinople  :  "  Every  corner 
and  nook  of  the  city  is  full  of  men  who  discuss  incom- 
prehensible subjects ;  the  streets,  the  markets,  the  people 
who  sell  old  clothes,  those  who  sit  at  the  tables  of  the 
money-changers,  those  who  deal  in  provisions.  Ask  a 
man  how  many  oboli  it  comes  to,  he  gives  you  a  dog- 
matic discourse  on  generated  and  unregenerated  being. 
Inquire    the   price   of  bread,   you   are   answered,    'The 

1  A.  D.  269.  2  Baur,  i.  337;   Gibbon,  iii.  21. 

8  A.  D.  357.  4  Baur,  ii.  86. 


THE   COUNCIL  OF  NICEA.  6l 

Father  is  greater  than  the  Son,  and  the  Son  subordinate 
to  the  Father.'  Ask  if  your  bath  is  ready,  you  are  an- 
swered, '  The  Son  of  God  was  created  from  nothing.'  " l 

But  the  matter  had  a  far  more  serious  side.  The  con- 
demned doctrines  showed  themselves  too  strong  to  be 
suppressed  by  a  single  council;  and  the  events  of  the 
following  half- century  were  a  constant  satire  upon  the 
assertion  of  Athanasius,  "  The  Word  of  the  Lord  which 
was  given  in  the  CEcumenical  Council  of  Nicaea  remain- 
eth  forever."  2  That  the  doctrines  of  that  council  repre- 
sented, on  the  whole,  the  dominant  sentiment  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  it  would  be  foolish  to  deny  j  for  Arianism  in 
the  end  succumbed,  and  the  Nicaean  confession  survived. 
But  the  triumph  of  that  confession  at  Niccea  had  slight 
significance,  and  was  by  no  means  accepted  at  the  time 
as  final.  It  was  an  imperial  rather  than  a  religious  vic- 
tory; and  the  same  imperial  influence  gave  to  Arianism 
afterwards  a  long  period  of  triumph.  The  decree  of  the 
Second  Council  of  Sirmium  in  357,  from  which  I  have 
already  quoted,3  shows  the  extent  to  which  this  reaction 
went.  "  Let  every  one,"  says  that  decree,  "  hold  this  as 
Catholic  doctrine,  that  Father  and  Son  are  two  persons, 
and  that  the  Son  is  subordinate  to  the  Father."  4  The 
fifty  years  immediately  following  the  Council  of  Nicaea  are 
dotted  with  synods ;  Arian  to-day,  Athanasian  to-morrow ; 
each  claiming  final  authority,  each  repudiating  or  modify- 
ing the  work  of  its  predecessor.     The  historian  Socrates 

1  Nean.  ii.  388,  n.  2  Stanley,  p.  242. 

3  p.  60.  *  Baur,  ii.  86. 


62  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

enumerates  eight  of  these,  with  eight  distinct  creeds, 
between  the  years  325  and  329.  The  victory  was  not 
certain,  as  we  shall  see,  until  the  year  381,  when  a  sec- 
ond General  Council  was  called  at  Constantinople,  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Emperor  Theodosius,  to  revise  the 
creed  of  Nicaea,  and  declare  all  opposition  to  it  heresy. 
According  to  this  later  form  of  the  Nicaean  confession, 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  pronounced  the  "  Lord  and  Giver  of 
Life,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  who 
with  the  Father  and  the  Son  together  is  worshipped  and 
glorified.,, 

Athanasius  triumphed  in  the  end;  nor  would  I  rep- 
resent his  triumph  as  necessarily  a  misfortune  to  the 
Church.  As  between  the  two  men  themselves,  there  is 
little  for  us  in  these  days,  as  we  have  seen,  to  choose. 
Both  speak  a  theological  language  foreign  to  our  ears ; 
both  deal  in  subtleties  whose  importance  and  interest 
have  long  ago  been  lost.  But  so  far  as  concerns  the  word 
itself,  which  divided  them,  and  the  deeper  import  which 
that  word  may  be  made  to  bear,  the  religious  world  has 
little  reason  to  regret  the  triumph  of  Athanasius,  if,  in- 
deed, these  controversies  have  any  real  importance.  If 
Arius  was  right,  then  is  not  only  the  Son,  but  all  human- 
ity as  well,  essentially  distinct  from  the  Father.  The  uni- 
verse is  twofold,  not  a  unit;  the  human  and  the  divine 
have  no  real  unity.  If  Athanasius  was  right,  then  not 
only  the  Son,  but  all  humanity  as  well,  is  of  one  essence 
and  spirit  with  the  Father.  Then  the  universe  is  one 
throughout,  with  God  as  its  centre  and  its  whole ;  and  the 


THE   COUNCIL   OF  NICEA.  63 

vision  of  an  absolute  and  all-embracing  unity,  embracing 
God  and  man,  heaven  and  earth,  time  and  eternity,  which 
has  haunted  thoughtful  minds  in  every  age,  is  no  illusion, 
but  a  fine  reality.1 

One  point  more  and  the  exact  significance  of  this  first 
Christian  creed  will  be  understood.  You  have  already 
noticed,  probably,  that  the  Nicaean  formula  contains  no 
mention  of  a  trinity.  If  you  have  inferred  that  because 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  mentioned  at  the  close,  therefore 
a  trinity  was  virtually  there,  and  was  intended  to  be 
understood  though  not  mentioned,  a  few  words  will  be 
necessary  to  put  the  matter  in  its  true  light.  The  trinity 
is  not  in  the  Nicaean  creed,  either  in  name  or  reality. 
It  is  no  more  in  the  Nicaean  creed  than  in  the  Arian 
creed. 

You  will  remember  that  in  my  last  lecture,  while  quot- 
ing from  Tertullian  and  Origen,  writers  of  the  second  and 
third  centuries,  passages  which  alluded  to  a  trinity,  I 
spoke  of  these  allusions  as  so  incidental  in  their  character 
as  to  prove  that  the  doctrine,  far  from  being  universally 
accepted,  was  new  and  unfamiliar.  Even  with  these 
Fathers,  it  was  less  a  doctrine  than  a  passing  idea.  Of 
the  "  Sacred  Trinity,"  the  "  Most  Holy  Trinity,"  or  of  any 
Trinity  which  would  require  a  capital  letter  in  writing  it, 
I  remember  no  mention  j  still  less  of  any  tri-personality. 
And  now,  as  if  to  prove  that  the  thought  was  transient  and 
unformed,  three-quarters  of  a  century  after  the  death  of 
Origen,  a  universal  council  of  the  Christian  church  met 

1  Compare  Baur,  ii.  97.     ^^-rS^r^^**^ 


64  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

to  establish  the  creed  of  Christendom,  and  no  mention  of 
a  trinity  was  made.  Neither  in  the  discussions  of  the 
council,  nor  in  the  fierce  controversies  which  sprung  from 
it,  did  either  party  seem  to  have  the  subject  of  a  trinity  on 
its  mind. 

Exactly  what  the  Nicean  creed  did  was  this :  It 
pronounced  the  Father  and  Son  of  one  substance,  or 
coequal ;  of  the  Holy  Ghost  it  simply  said,  "  We  believe 
in  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  this  was  no  accidental  omis- 
sion, but  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was  at  this 
time  really  undetermined,  the  writings  of  the  period  clearly 
show.  At  the  Synod  of  Antioch,  in  341,  a  letter  of  the 
Bishops  constituting  the  synod  speaks  of  Christ  in  these 
terms :  "  The  Son,  God  the  only-begotten,  God  of  God, 
Whole  of  Whole,  Only  of  Only,  Perfect  of  Perfect,  King 
of  King,  Lord  of  Lord,  Living  Word,  Wisdom,  Life,  True 
Light,  Way  of  Truth,  Resurrection,  Shepherd,  Gate,  Un- 
alterable image  of  the  Divine  substance,  Power,  Counsel, 
Glory  of  the  Father ;  "  while  the  Holy  Spirit  is  dismissed 
with  a  single  word.  Gregory  of  Nazianzen,  writing  about 
380,  says :  "  Some  of  our  theologians  consider  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  be  a  certain  mode  of  the  Divine  agency,  others  a 
creature  of  God,  others  God  himself.  Others  say  they  do 
not  know  which  of  the  two  opinions  they  ought  to  adopt, 
out  of  reverence  for  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  have  not 
clearly  explained  this  point."  Hilary  of  Poictiers,  who 
spent  his  life  in  the  midst  of  the  Arian  controversy,  as  one 
of  the  supporters  of  Athanasius,  "  held  it  best  to  remain 
fast  by  simple  Scripture  doctrine  concerning  the  Holy 


THE  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A.  65 

Spirit,  which,  as  it  seemed  to  him,  furnished  no  materials 
for  exact  logical  definition  of  this  doctrine." l 

Nothing  in  all  history  is  more  obvious  than  the  gradual 
evolution  of  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  As 
the  Christian  world  was  exactly  three  hundred  and  twenty- 
five  years  in  determining  that  the  Father  and  Son  are 
co-equal  and  co-substantial,  so  it  was  precisely  fifty-five 
years  longer  in  determining  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  third 
factor  equal  to  both  the  others.  In  the  edict  of  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius,  issued  on  his  own  authority,  in  380, 
and  confirmed  by  the  general  council  of  Constantinople  in 
381,  are  for  the  first  time  these  words:  "According  to 
the  discipline  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  let  us  believe  the  Sole  Deity  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  under  an  equal  majesty  and  a 
pious  Trinity.  We  authorize  the  followers  of  this  doctrine 
to  assume  the  title  of  Catholic  Christians,  and  as  we  judge 
that  all  others  are  extravagant  madmen,  we  brand  them 
with  the  impious  name  of  Heretics."  2 

Finally,  in  what  was  long  considered,  and  what  is 
still  called,  the  Creed  of  Athanasius,  written,  however,  by 
some  unknown  hand  a  full  century  after  Athanasius's 
death,3  the  Trinity  received  its  complete  doctrinal  state- 
ment, and  was  given  in  such  fulness  of  detail  as  to  leave 
no  possibility  of  further  misunderstanding.  "  The  Catholic 
faith  is,  that  we  adore  One  God  in  Trinity,  and  Trinity  in 

1  Neander's  Hist,  of  Church,  ii.  419. 

2  Chris.  Ex.,  March,  i860,  p.  250,  article  by  Dr.  F.  H.  Hedge. 

3  Stanley,  p.  347. 

5 


66  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Unity,  neither  confounding  the  persons  nor  dividing  the 
substance.  .  .  .  The  Father  is  one  person,  the  Son  is  one 
person,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  one  person,  yet  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  one  God.  .  .  .  The  Father  is 
uncreated,  the  Son  is  uncreated,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  un- 
created; the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  God ;  yet  are  there  not  three  gods  but  One  God. 
.  .  .  Which  faith,  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and 
undefiled,  without  doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly." 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  this  creed  had 
no  connection  either  with  Athanasius  or  with  Nicaea,  but 
came  more  than  a  century  later.  Before  that  century  was 
past,  or  the  definitions  of  the  Athanasian  creed  were  pos- 
sible, a  preliminary  question  arose,  which  brought  fresh 
strife  into  the  church,  and  could  only  be  answered  by  a 
new  series  of  councils. 

January  18,  1874. 


IV. 


CONTROVERSY  CONCERNING  THE 
TWO  NATURES. 

A  T  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  the  doctrine  of 
-*^-  the  Christian  church,  so  far  at  least  as  the  nature 
of  its  founder  was  concerned,  was  to  all  appearance  finally 
determined.  At  one  General  Council  in  325,  the  Son  had 
been  pronounced  coequal,  even  in  substance,  with  the 
Father,  at  the  Second  General  Council  in  381,  the  Holy 
Spirit  had  been  pronounced  coequal  with  Father  and 
Son  j  and  thus  the  idea  of  a  Trinity,  vaguely  present  in 
the  second  century  to  the  minds  of  a  Tertullian  and 
an  Origen,  had  taken  at  last  complete  dogmatic  form. 
What  further  controversy  was  possible  ?  "  None,"  would 
have  been  the  answer,  no  doubt,  of  the  actors  in  each 
council.  In  determining  the  special  doctrine  which 
pressed  for  instant  solution,  and  condemning  the  special 
heresy  which  threatened  the  unity  of  the  hour,  they 
seemed  to  themselves,  unquestionably,  to  be  uttering  the 
final  decision  of  the  Church.  How  Athanasius  himself 
regarded  the  decree  of  Nicasa  appears  from  the  words 
which  I  quoted  in  my  last  lecture  :  "  The  Word  of  the 


68  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Lord  which  was  given  in  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of 
Nicaea  remaineth  forever."  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how- 
ever, each  of  those  early  doctrinal  decisions  simply 
brought  new  differences  to  light,  and  rendered  further  and 
more  exact  decisions  necessary.  To  put  New  Testament 
religion  into  doctrinal  form  proved  no  easy  task.  The 
First  Council  necessitated  the  Second ;  the  Second,  as  we 
shall  see,  called  for  a  Third  and  a  Fourth. 

The  question  left  unanswered  by  the  first  two  councils 
is  plain  at  once.  The  Son  is  equal  to  the  Father,  said  the 
Synod  of  Nicaea ;  not  subordinate,  as  Origen  and  the  early 
Fathers,  following  John  and  Paul,  had  said ;  not  of  an- 
other substance,  as  Arius  claimed;  but  in  all  respects 
God.  But  what  becomes  then  of  the  human  nature  of 
Christ?  He  seemed  in  all  respects  like  a  man.  He  had 
a  human  body  and  mind,  human  mother,  brothers,  and 
sisters,  was  born,  lived  and  died,  grew  out  of  infancy  and 
childhood  into  manhood,  increased  in  wisdom,  and  was 
subject  to  emotion,  affection,  and  suffering.  Was  all  this, 
as  the  earlier  heretics  had  declared,  only  apparent,  not 
real?  Or,  if  real,  how  is  this  humanity  in  Christ  con- 
nected with  his  Deity?  In  a  word,  while  the  dogma  of 
the  two  councils  had  determined,  however  incomprehen- 
sibly, the  relation  of  Christ  to  God,  it  had  left  undeter- 
mined the  relation  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ  himself. 
In  making  the  Son  and  Father  one,  it  seemed  to  be  mak- 
ing the  Son  two. 

Such  was  the  question  still  to  be  answered ;  and  such 
the   source   of  the    fierce    disputes    which   divided   the 


THE  TWO  NATURES.  69 

church  during  the  first  half  of  the  fifth  century.  Extend- 
ing, virtually,  from  the  Council  of  Constantinople  in  381, 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  and  bearing  at  dif- 
ferent periods  of  its  progress  the  several  names  of  Nesto- 
rian,  Eutychian,  and  Monophysite,  it  was,  in  reality,  one 
long  contest  to  determine  the  relation  between  the  divine 
and  human  natures  in  Christ.  To  use  the  later  phraseol- 
ogy of  the  church,  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  must  be 
supplemented,  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation;  and  the 
construction  of  this  latter  doctrine  was  the  problem  of 
the  fifth  century.  If  the  problem  seems  to  us  now  to 
have  been  solved  by  peculiar  methods,  and  the  strife 
settled  by  questionable  weapons,  if  the  cries  of  infuriated 
monks,  the  yells  of  hostile  parties,  or  the  arms  of  impe- 
rial soldiery,  seem  hardly  the  arguments  for  determining 
the  subtler  relations  or  the  profounder  mysteries  of  the 
Divine  Being,  we  can  only  accept  this  as  a  necessary 
condition  of  formulating  religious  doctrines  in  a  half- 
barbarous  age. 

The  controversy  began  in  Constantinople  about  the 
year  428,  taking  at  first  what  seems  to  us  a  singularly 
trivial  form.  When  the  exact  definition  of  eternal  mys- 
teries is  once  entered  upon,  however,  the  most  puerile 
questions  must  be  answered.  If  Christ  was  God,  said 
those  who  were  jealous  of  his  Deity,  then  it  was  God  who 
was  born  in  Bethlehem  of  Judaea,  of  the  Virgin  Mary. 
Then  Mary  was  not  simply  the  mother  of  Jesus,  she  was 
in  literal  fact  the  "  Mother  of  God." 

Whether  this  phrase,  when  first  spoken,  had  the  same 


•JO  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

grossly  anthropomorphic  sound  which  it  bears  to  our  ears, 
we  cannot  telh  Apparently,  it  was  employed  for  a  long 
time  without  exciting  any  attention ;  and  certainly  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fifth  century  the  phrase  was  in  familiar 
use,  being  especially  in  vogue  in  the  Alexandrian  Church, 
where  the  Athanasian  spirit  still  prevailed,  and  where  for  a 
long  time  the  allegorizing  and  transcendental  school  of 
Christian  thought  found  its  home.  In  Antioch,  on  the 
contrary,  the  old  abode  of  Arianism,  where  a  more  critical 
and  rationalistic  spirit  seems  to  have  gained  entrance,  and 
a  scientific  method  of  Scripture  interpretation  to  have 
won  the  day  against  the  allegorical,  the  phrase  gave  great 
offence,  and  was  regarded  as  a  virtual  denial  of  Christ's 
humanity.1 

A  verbal  controversy  over  this  question  had  already  be- 
gun among  the  Eastern  churches,  when  in  428,  Nestorius, 
a  presbyter  of  Antioch,  and  in  full  sympathy  with  the  ten- 
dencies of  that  school,  was  made  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople. Almost  immediately  after  his  entrance  upon  the 
office,  one  of  his  presbyters,  alarmed  at  the  spreading 
heresy,  and  assured  beforehand,  perhaps,  of  his  Patri- 
arch's sympathy,  took  occasion  to  say  in  public  discourse, 
"  Let  no  one  style  Mary  *  Mother  of  God  ; '  for  Mary  was 
human,  and  it  is  impossible  for  God  to  be  born  of  a 
human  being."  2  The  excitement  caused  by  this  seems 
to  have  been  intense,  and  the  part  taken  in  it  by  the  new 
Patriarch  is  best  shown  by  the  language  of  one  of  the  two 

1  Baur,  ii.  108 ;  Neander's  Hist,  of  Chris.  Dogmas,  i.  325. 

2  Evagrius's  Eccles.  Hist.,  Bohn's  Edit.  p.  258. 


THE  TWO  NATURES.  7 1 

earliest  historians  of  these  events,  Evagrius.1  "  Then 
Nestorius,  that  God-assaulting  tongue,  that  second  con- 
clave of  Caiaphas,  that  work-shop  of  blasphemy,  in  whose 
case  Christ  is  again  made  the  subject  of  bargain  and  sale, 
by  having  his  natures  divided  and  torn  asunder,  .  .  . 
vomited  forth  the  venom  of  his  soul,  avouching,  ' 1  could 
never  be  induced  to  call  that  God  which  admitted  of 
being  two  months  old  or  three  months  old.'  "  2 

Reducing  this  excited  rhetoric  to  simple  fact,  Nestorius 
seems  to  have  met  the  emergency  with  singular  moder- 
ation and  dignity,  expounding  in  several  discourses,  the 
true  nature  of  Christ,  by  no  means  denying  his  divinity, 
but  distinguishing  between  the  Logos  and  the  man  Jesus,8 
and  declaring,  in  terms  hardly  distinguishable  from  those 
in  which  the  Orthodox  doctrine  was  itself  finally  framed, 
that  in  Christ  were  two  natures,  both  Deity  and  Human- 
ity, united  together  in  closest  intimacy.  As  the  best 
escape  from  the  difficulty,  he  proposed  that  Mary  should 
be  called  neither  Mother  of  God  nor  Mother  of  man, 
but  "  Mother  of  Christ."  4 

To  quiet  the  agitation  and  close  the  controversy,  the 
Emperor  Theodosius  followed  the  example  of  the  first 
Theodosius,  and  of  Constantine,  by  summoning  a  general 
council,  which  met  at  Ephesus  in  431,  and  was  styled  the 
Third  (Ecumenical  Council.  The  council  was  not  di- 
rected, as  before,  by  the  Emperor  in  person  ;  yet,  although 
left  entirely  to  the  ecclesiastics,  it  bore  hardly  more  the 

1  Writing  about  570.  2  Evag.  pp.  257,  258. 

8  Socrates,  p.  371.  4  Nean.  Hist.  ii.  452. 


72  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

character  of  a  thoughtful  assembly,  deliberating  upon  re- 
ligious themes,  than  did  that  at  Constantinople  or  at  Nicsea. 
The  opponent  of  Nestorius,  and  leader  of  the  opposite 
party,  was  the  notorious  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  that 
zealous  defender  of  a  spiritual  Christianity  whom  the 
church  has  placed  among  its  saints,  but  who,  before  the 
council  of  Ephesus,  had  chiefly  signalized  himself  by 
levelling  all  the  Jewish  synagogues  in  Alexandria  with  the 
ground,  and  by  causing  the  beautiful  Pagan  maiden,  and 
gifted  teacher  of  Greek  philosophy,  Hypatia,  to  be  torn 
from  her  chariot  and  brutally  murdered  in  the  streets  of 
Alexandria.  To  Cyril's  thought,  it  was  equal  blasphemy 
to  deny  that  Mary  was  "  Mother  of  God,"  and  to  teach 
the  doctrines  of  Plato  and  Aristotle ;  and  he  hastened  to 
Ephesus,  with  a  large  following  of  mariners,  slaves,  and 
fanatic  monks,  to  overthrow  the  Nestorian  heresy.1  How 
far  he  was  influenced  in  his  action  by  the  desire  to  remove 
a  rival  who,  as  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  disputed  with 
him  the  primacy  of  the  East,  we  can  only  conjecture. 

Of  the  debates  in  the  council  of  Ephesus,  as  in  the 
case  of  previous  councils,  we  are  told  little  or  nothing. 
The  real  question  at  issue,  as  we  have  seen,  was  between 
making  the  Logos  and  the  man  Jesus  two  distinct  persons, 
and  making  the  two  so  completely  one  that  the  humanity 
became  a  mere  name.  The  course  of  theological  debate 
on  this  theme  seems  to  have  been  the  following :  John  of 
Antioch,  with  his  attendant  bishops,  being  somewhat  be- 
lated in  his  journey,  Cyril,  who  was  already  on  the  ground, 
1  Gibbon,  vi.  21. 


THE  TWO  NATURES.  Jl 

refused  to  wait  for  him,  called  together  those  who  were 
present  and  deposed  Nestorius,  condemning  his  doctrine. 
Nestorius,  denying  Cyril's  authority,  withdrew  with  his 
friends  and  deposed  Cyril.  John  of  Antioch,  on  arriving 
five  days  later,  convened  his  priests  at  once  and  finally 
deposed  Cyril  once  more ;  whereupon  Cyril  summoned 
his  bishops  again  and  deposed  John.  These  results  were 
then  reported  to  the  Emperor,  who,  although  no  enemy  to 
Nestorius  or  his  doctrine,  was  yet  persuaded  to  ratify  his 
deposition,  and  bring  about  a  reconciliation  between  John 
and  Cyril.  Nestorius,  although  showing  a  conciliatory 
spirit  to  the  end,  and  even  offering  to  accept  the  disputed 
term,1  yet  proved  unequal  to  the  combinations  made 
against  him  in  Alexandria,  Rome,  and  Antioch,  was  finally 
banished,  and  died  in  exile.  The  Council  of  Ephesus 
thus  put  the  stamp  of  heresy  on  the  doctrine  of  two 
distinct  natures  in  Christ,  and  sanctioned  the  phrase 
"  Mother  of  God."  "For  a  union  of  two  natures  has 
taken  place.  Wherefore  we  confess  one  Christ,  one  Son, 
one  Lord.  According  to  which  union  (though  not  mix- 
ture) of  the  two  natures,  we  confess  that  the  Holy  Virgin 
is  Mother  of  God  (0cotokoj/)."2 

The  next  disturbance  of  the  unity  of  the  church  was 
caused  about  fifteen  years  later,  by  one  Eutyches,  an 
archimandrite  or  abbot  of  Constantinople.  Taking  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  at  its  word,  and  so  holding  Mary  to 
be  the  Mother  of  God,  he  seems  to  have  come  to  the 

1  Evag.  p.  261 ;  Soc.  p.  373. 

*  Hefele's  Conciliengeschichte,  ii.  262,  n. 


74  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

very  natural  conclusion,  in  which  he  had  many  earlier 
theologians  of  high  repute  to  sustain  him,  that  if  it  was 
God  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  it  could  not  have  been 
man ;  that  from  the  moment  when  the  Logos  entered  into 
the  flesh,  the  human  became  absorbed  in  the  divine,  and 
had  thenceforth  no  real  existence.  "  I  allow,"  said  Euty- 
ches,  "  that  the  Lord  was  produced  from  two  natures 
before  their  union,  but  I  confess  only  one  nature  after 
their  union."1  Christ  then  was  of  one  nature  only,  and 
that  a  divine  nature.  Christ  was  really  and  exclusively 
God.2 

But  church  doctrines  and  decrees  of  councils  are  not  to 
be  taken  so  literally,  or  interpreted  by  such  obstinate  logic. 
Although  for  the  purpose  of  condemning  Nestorius,  it 
might  be  very  well  to  declare  that  God  himself  was  born 
of  the  Virgin,  yet  what  was  to  be  done  with  certain 
embarrassing  conclusions  to  which  that  doctrine  pointed  ? 
If  it  was  God  who  was  born,  then  it  was  certainly  God 
who  suffered,  and  God  also  who  died  upon  the  cross. 
Was  the  church  ready  for  this  confession  ? 

Not  wholly,  it  seemed.  Indeed,  the  agitation  caused 
in  Constantinople  in  448,  when  Eutyches  declared  that 
there  was  only  one  nature  in  Christ,  could  only  be  com- 
pared with  the  agitation  in  Constantinople  in  428,  when 
Nestorius  declared  that  there  were  two  natures  in  Christ. 
There  were  not  two,  it  seems  ;  neither  was  there  but  one. 
To  common  minds  the  position  would  seem  to  be  critical ; 
and  the  religion  which  consists  in  verbal  definitions  to  be 
1  Evagrius,  267.  2  Baur,  ii.  113,  114. 


THE  TWO   NATURES.  75 

driven  at  last  to  the  wall.  But  to  an  imperial  church, 
sustained  by  the  strong  arm  of  military  power,  everything 
is  possible ;  and  although  it  required  two  more  councils 
to  do  it,  the  impossible  was  finally  achieved. 

The  position  taken  by  Eutyches,  as  I  have  said,  caused 
great  excitement  in  Constantinople,  and  induced  the  Patri- 
arch Flavian  to  summon  a  local  synod  by  which  Eutyches 
was  condemned,  and  the  doctrine  of  one  nature  declared 
heresy.  Eutyches,  however,  who  happened  to  have  friends 
at  the  imperial  court,  appealed  from  this  decree  to  a 
general  council,  which  was  therefore  summoned  to  meet, 
once  more  in  Ephesus,  in  449.  The  picture  of  this 
council,  known  to  history  by  the  significant  name  of  the 
"Robber  Council,"  is  so  vividly  sketched  by  one  of  the 
earlier  historians  (Evagrius),  and  is  so  significant,  even  in 
its  excesses,  of  the  character  of  those  theological  contro- 
versies out  of  which  church  doctrine  has  been  born,  that 
I  am  led  to  describe  it  in  as  much  detail  as  my  space  will 
allow. 

This  council  was  summoned,  in  regular  form,  by  both 
the  Emperors,  and  consisted  according  to  one  account  of 
366  bishops,  though  another  account  makes  the  number 
much  less.  The  leader  of  the  council  was  the  successor 
of  Cyril,  the  hardly  less  ferocious  Dioscurus  of  Alexandria. 
Sympathizing  naturally  with  the  views  of  Eutyches,  and 
holding,  very  justly,  that  in  his  condemnation  Cyril  was 
himself  condemned,  Dioscurus  went  to  Ephesus  bent 
simply  upon  reinstating  Eutyches  at  whatever  cost,  and 
by  whatever  methods.     He  was  not  unattended  ;  but,  like 


J6  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Cyril  before  him,  took  with  him  what  Evagrius  calls  a 
"  disorderly  rabble," x  consisting  of  Asiatic  veterans,  a  band 
of  archers,  and  a  crowd  of  turbulent  monks,  who  carried 
consternation  to  the  hearts  of  the  peaceful  inhabitants  of 
Ephesus,  and  did  brave  service  for  their  leader  throughout 
the  debates.2 

The  order  of  proceedings  seems  to  have  been :  first,  to 
expel  from  the  chamber  all  reporters  not  belonging  to  the 
party  of  Dioscurus ;  then  to  read  the  acts  of  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople  by  which  Eutyches  had  been  con- 
demned. This  reading  was  constantly  interrupted  by 
the  howls  of  Dioscurus's  Egyptian  monks,  who  took  this 
method  of  showing  their  horror  of  heresy,  and  their  zeal 
for  a  pure  Christianity.  Basil,  Bishop  of  Seleucia,  being 
reported  as  saying,  "  I  worship  the  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
...  in  two  natures,"  the  monks  shouted,  "  Nestor ian  ! 
Tear  him  asunder  !  Burn  him  alive  !  As  he  divided  so 
let  him  be  divided  !  "  —  the  most  fearful  pun  on  record, 
I  suppose.  When  the  reading  was  finished,  and  condem- 
nation pronounced  upon  the  former  Synod,  these  shouts 
were  redoubled.  "  Anathema  to  him  that  parts  !  Anath- 
ema to  him  that  divides  !  Drive  out,  burn,  tear,  cut 
asunder,  massacre  all  who  hold  two  natures  ! " 3  The 
noisy  monks  were  not  restrained  by  the  presiding  officer  j 
on  the  contrary,  those  who  could  not  "roar"  loud  enough 
to  add  to  the   clamor,  were   besought   by  Dioscurus  to 

1  Evag.  p.  290. 

2  Gibbon,  vi.  26,  28. 

8  Evag.  p.  320;  Robertson,  i.  481  ;  Gibbon,  vi.  28. 


THE   TWO   NATURES.  yj 

"stretch  out  their  hands  "  in  token  of  assent  and  encour- 
agement. 

Nor  were  these  the  only  means  employed  by  the  politic 
Dioscurus  to  accomplish  the  restoration  of  Eutyches.  A 
letter  to  the  council  in  condemnation  of  Eutyches,  from 
Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome,  instead  of  being  publicly  read, 
was  quietly  suppressed.  Forged  passages  were  introduced 
into  the  acts  as  finally  passed ;  a  fact  which  was  elicited 
at  the  next  council  by  an  examination  of  the  actors  in 
this,  and  of  which  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  gives 
the  following  interesting  explanation  :  "  The  notaries  of 
Dioscurus  seized  the  fingers  of  my  notaries,  so  that 
they  were  in  danger  of  most  grievous  treatment." l  Fi- 
nally, when  the  vote  was  to  be  taken,  and  the  prelates 
embraced  the  knees  of  Dioscurus,  entreating  him  to 
spare  them  the  necessity  of  deposing  their  Patriarch  for 
condemning  Eutyches,  Dioscurus  exclaimed,  "Do  you 
mean  to  raise  a  sedition?  Where  are  the  officers ?" 
Instantly  a  furious  multitude  of  monks  and  soldiers  with 
swords,  clubs,  and  chains,  burst  into  the  church,  driving 
the  terrified  bishops  into  the  corners,  and  under  the 
tables  and  seats,  from  which  they  were  not  suffered  to 
emerge  until  they  had  promised  to  sign  a  blank  paper, 
which  was  afterwards  filled  out  with  the  deposition  of 
Flavian,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  The  unhappy 
Flavian,  who  was  present,  suffered  indignities  greater 
than  deposition.  According  to  the  testimony  of  two 
different  historians,  he  was  so  beaten,  kicked,  and  stamped 
1  Evag.  p.  319. 


78  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY.      . 

upon  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  that  he  died  of  his 
injuries.  Whoever  inflicted  the  wounds,  it  is  quite  certain 
that  within  three  days  he  was  dead.1 

Thus  ended  the  second  council  of  Ephesus,  by  which 
the  decrees  of  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  were  reversed, 
and  the  doctrine  of  Eutyches,  which  for  a  year  had 
been  heresy,  was  pronounced  Orthodox.  According  to 
the  Orthodoxy  of  449,  Christ  had  not  two  natures,  he 
had  but  one.  I  take  pleasure  in  closing  the  narrative 
with  the  words  of  Evagrius :  "  Here  let  not  any  of  the 
deluded  worshippers  of  idols  presume  to  sneer,  as  if  it 
were  the  business  of  succeeding  councils  to  depose  their 
predecessors,  and  to  be  ever  devising  some  additions  to 
our  faith."  2  This  protest  becomes  even  more  opportune, 
two  years  later,  after  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

Entire  acquiescence  in  an  edict  thus  procured  was 
hardly  to  be  looked  for  even  in  an  age  accustomed  to  such 
methods  of  religious  disputes ;  still  less  as  immediately 
after  the  council,  a  change  in  the  imperial  household 
brought  about  a  change  in  the  theological  atmosphere  of 
the  East.  In  the  year  450  Theodosius  died,  and  Marcion 
became  Emperor;  which  means  that  the  Alexandrian 
church  passed  out  of  favor,  and  Eutychian  doctrines 
were  consequently  discredited  at  court.  After  two  years 
of  ill-gotten  triumph,  the  Monophysite  theory  of  Christ's 
nature  must  cease  to  be  the  Orthodox  faith  of  Chris- 
tendom. 

In  451,  the  influence  of  Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome,  in 
1  Gibbon,  vi.  29.  2  Evag.  p.  270. 


THE  TWO   NATURES.  79 

whom  the  coming  power  of  the  Papacy  was  already 
foreshadowed,  and  whose  letter  to  the  previous  council 
had  been  so  arbitrarily  suppressed,  caused  what  is  com- 
monly reckoned  the  Fourth  General  Council  to  be  sum- 
moned at  Chalcedon,  expressly  to  reverse  the  decrees 
of  Ephesus,  and  end  the  weary  and  disgraceful  strife 
over  the  nature  of  Christ. 

The  proceedings  of  this  council  do  not  seem  to  have 
differed  essentially  from  those  of  its  predecessors,  and 
certainly  bore  no  closer  resemblance  to  the  acts  of  a 
deliberative  assembly,  even  if  it  won  no  such  unenviable 
name.  Not  only  was  it  so  constituted  that  its  decisions 
were  secure  in  advance,  but  many  of  the  same  furious  and 
intimidating  cries  were  heard  which  had  struck  terror  to 
the  hearts  of.  the  Nestorian  prelates  at  Ephesus.  The 
robbers  seemed  to  be  still  in  council.  When  the  Nicsean 
creed,  which  this  council  reaffirmed  with  certain  addi- 
tions, was  read,  the  bishops  shouted,  "This  is  the  faith 
of  the  Orthodox  !  thus  we  all  believe  !  thus  does  Pope 
Leo  believe  !  thus  did  Christ  believe  !  thus  has  the  Pope 
expounded." *  When  the  "  Epistle  of  the  divine  Cyril  " 
was  read,  the  whole  Synod  exclaimed,  "Thus  do  we  all 
believe !  Anathema  to  him  that  divides  and  to  him 
that  confounds  !  [The  theology  of  these  howls  had  ad- 
vanced somewhat.]  This  is  the  faith  of  Leo  !  Thus  do 
we  all  believe  !  As  Cyril  believed  so  do  we!"2  "  But 
few  are  exclaiming,"  complained  one  of  the  prelates, 
"the  Synod  is  not  speaking."  Whereupon  the  Oriental 
1  Evag.  p.  328.  *  Id.  p.  330. 


80  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

bishops  cried,  "  Egyptians  to  exile  !  "  Illyrians  :  "  We 
entreat  compassion  on  all."  Orientals :  "  Egyptians  to 
exile  !  "  Illyrians  :  "  We  entreat  compassion."  Orientals  : 
"  Dioscurus  to  exile  !  Egyptians  to  exile  !  The  heretic 
to  exile  !  "  Illyrians  :  "We  have  all  erred  !  Indulgence 
to  all !  Dioscurus  to  the  Synod  !  Dioscurus  to  the 
churches  !  " *  Finally,  when  Dioscurus  was  deposed  : 
"  Anathema  to  Dioscurus  !  Christ  has  deposed  Dios- 
curus !  Cast  out  such  persons  !  Away  with  the  outrage  ! 
Away  with  the  infamy  from  the  Synod  !  " 2 

To  depose  and  condemn  Dioscurus  was  comparatively 
easy,  for  passion  and  ambition  were  strong  j  but  to  pre- 
pare a  new  statement  of  faith  which  should  meet  the 
views  of  .all  parties,  and  steer  a  clear  course  between 
opposing  heresies,  was  not  so  easy,  and  seems  to  have 
been  accomplished  only  after  a  hint  from  the  Emperor  that 
"  unless  the  bishops  framed  a  rule  of  faith  they  might  be 
assured  that  the  Synod  would  be  held  at  the  West."3 
Finally,  at  the  fifth  or  sixth  meeting  of  the  council,  the 
new  formula  was  announced,  reaffirming  the  Edict  of 
Nicsea,  and  adding,  with  a  great  deal  beside,  the  following 
words :  "  Since  some  reject  the  term  '  Mother  of  God,' 
others  mould  into  one  the  natures  of  the  flesh  and  of  the 
Godhead  ...  we  confess  one  and  the  same  Son,  at  the 
same  time  perfect  in  manhood,  and  perfect  in  Godhead, 
born  of  Mary,  Mother  of  God,  and  made  known  in  [or 
out  of]  two  natures  without  confusion,  conversion,  sever- 
ance, separation  ;  the  differences,  of  nature  by  no  means 

»  Evag.  p.  332.  2  Id.  p.  335.  3  Id.  p.  336. 


THE  TWO   NATURES.  8 1 

annulled  by  union,  but  the  peculiar  essence  of  each  pre- 
served and  conspiring  in  one  person  and  one  subsistence, 
not  parted  or  severed  into  two."  ' 

And  now  what  exact  doctrine  do  we  find  beneath  this 
profusion  of  words  ?  How  did  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
solve  the  apparently  insoluble  problem  which,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  given  it?  To  say  that  Christ  was  of  one  nature, 
as  you  remember,  would  be  Eutychian;  to  say  that  he 
was  of  two  natures  would  be  Nestorian.  How  did  the 
council  escape  this  Scylla  and  Charybdis  of  heresy  ? 

By  the  simplest  process  possible.  It  accepted  both 
statements  and  declared  them  one.  Creating  for  the 
purpose  a  convenient  distinction  between  nature  and  per- 
son, it  declared  that  in  Christ  were  tivo  natures  in  one 
person.  Christ  is  not  a  mixture  of  Deity  and  humanity, 
no  more  is  he  one  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other ;  he  is  at 
once  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  as  divine  as  Deity, 
as  human  as  humanity.  Such,  since  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon, has  been  the  creed  of  Christian  Orthodoxy. 

In  other  words,  standing  between  these  two  heresies, 
the  new  creed  stretched  out  loving  arms  and  embraced 
them  both.  The  Creed  of  Chalcedon  is  as  Nestorian  as 
Nestorius,  it  is  as  Eutychian  as  Eutyches ;  it  affirms  the 
two  natures  as  broadly  as  the  one,  it  declares  the  one 
nature  (under  the  name  of  person)  as  plainly  as  the 
other ;  and  with  sublime  effrontery,  asserts  that  two  doc- 
trines, each  of  which  excludes  the  other,  and  each  of 
which  in  turn  had  been  condemned  as  heresy,  and  both 

1  Evag.  p.  300.     Comp.  Hefele's  Conciliengeschichte,  ii.  468-472. 

6 


82  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

of  which  no  human  mind  has  ever  succeeded  in  grasping 
at  once,  are  both  together  true. 

The  lesson  thus  taught  was  well  learned.  The  so-called 
Athanasian  Creed,  of  which  I  have  already  spoken,  which 
was  composed  after  this  period,  and  perhaps  grew  out  of 
this  very  controversy,  and  which  stands  to-day  as  the  most 
complete  enunciation  of  the  Trinitarian  faith,  consists  of 
little  else  than  a  series  of  mutually  destructive  propositions 
like  the  above,  made  one  by  solemnly  pronouncing  them 
so.  "  By  its  repetition  of  positive  and  negative  proposi- 
tions," says  an  Orthodox  historian  of  doctrines,  "  its  per- 
petual assertion  and  then  again  denial  of  its  propositions, 
the  mystery  of  the  doctrine  is  presented  as  it  were  in 
hieroglyphics,  as  if  to  confound  the  understanding."1 
"  As  is  the  Father,  so  is  the  Son,  so  also  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Father  is  not  created ;  the  Son  is  not  created ;  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  not  created.  .  .  .  The  Father  is  eternal, 
the  Son  is  eternal,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  eternal :  yet  there 
are  not  three  Eternals;  there  is  one  Eternal.  So  there 
are  not  three  Uncreated;  there  is  one  Uncreated.  In 
like  manner,  the  Father  is  almighty,  the  Son  is  almighty, 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  almighty;  yet  there  are  not  three 
Almighties,  there  is  one  Almighty.  In  like  manner  the 
Father  is  God,  the  Son  is  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  God ; 
yet  are  there  not  three  Gods,  there  is  one  God.  In  like 
manner  the  Father  is  Lord,  the  Son  is  Lord,  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  Lord;  yet  are  there  not  three  Lords,  there  is 
one  Lord.  It  is  also  the  true  faith  that  we  confess  that 
1  Hagenbach's  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  i.  269. 


THE  TWO  NATURES.  83 

our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  God,  is  God  and  man. 
Perfect  God  and  Perfect  man.  Like  the  Father  in  his 
Deity,  less  than  the  Father  in  his  humanity.  And  al- 
though God  and  man,  yet  is  he  not  two,  but  one  Christ. 
One,  not  by  confusion  of  substance,  but  in  the  unity  of 
Person." * 

How  entirely  arbitrary,  and  how  foreign  to  New  Tes- 
tament thought,  is  the  distinction  here  made  between 
"  substance  "  and  "  person,"  or  between  "  nature  "  and 
"  person,"  is  proved,  not  only  by  the  fact  that  the  distinc- 
tion now  for  the  first  time  appears,  but  also  by  the  great 
difficulty  experienced  in  finding  words  to  express  the 
distinction.  The  Greek  word  here  used  for  "person" 
(vwootoo-is)  means  originally  the  same  as  that  used 
for  substance  (ovo-ia).  The  true  meaning  of  both  is 
substance,  essence,  nature.  The  correct  translation  of 
Heb.  i.  3,  the  only  passage  in  the  New  Testament  where 
hypostasis  is  found  in  connection  with  Christ,  is  "  image 
of  his  being."  As  late  as  in  the  Nicaean  Creed  the  two 
words  are  placed  side  by  side,  as  if  exact  equivalents, 
"those  that  say  that  the  Son  of  God  is  of  a  different 
being  or  substance,"  (viroo-rao-is  or  ola-ia).  Again,  how 
slightly  the  word  translated  "  nature "  (cf>v<ris)  originally 
differed  from  that  translated  "person,"  is  sufficiently 
proved  by  the  fact  that  while  in  the  discussions  at  Nicsea 
the  former  (</>uo-is)  was  employed  to  express  that  which 
distinguishes  the  one  nature  from  the  other,  and  the  latter 
(wo'cTTGun?)  to  express  that  which  both  have  in  common, 
1  Creed  of  Athanasius. 


84  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  Confession  of  Chalcedon  exactly  reverses  this  use 
of  the  two  words.1  Between  325  and  451,  the  necessi- 
ties of  Christian  theology,  demanding  certain  distinctions 
which  had  never  before  been  made,  had  determined  that 
i>7roo-Tacri5  should  henceforth  mean  person ;  <£iW,  nature  ; 
ova-ia,  substance;  and  that  in  this  distinction  of  names 
the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  should  rest. 

That  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  did  not  end  this  con- 
troversy, or  that  its  creed  was  no  more  accepted  as  a 
finality  than  were  the  many  which  had  preceded  it,  I  need 
hardly  assure  you.  Indeed,  the  descriptive  term  Mono- 
physite  ("of  one  nature  ")  first  came  into  vogue  at  this 
time,  to  designate  the  large  party  in  the  church,  which, 
following  in  the  steps  of  Eutyches,  still  insisted  that  two 
natures  made  two  persons,  and  that  to  call  Christ  one 
person  was  equivalent  to  assigning  him  a  single  nature. 
I  have  space  here  only  for  names ;  yet  the  very  titles  of 
the  various  parties  which  sprang  up  in  this  same  century 
have  a  certain  significance,  as  showing  through  what  giddy 
regions,  and  between  what  impalpable  distinctions,  the- 
ology was  then  holding  its  unsteady  course.  Among  the 
sects  whose  names  have  survived,  are  the  Theopaschites, 
who  declared  that  "  God  was  crucified,"  a  doctrine  which 
in  533  was  admitted  into  an  Orthodox  confession,2  the 
Aphthartodocetes  and  Phartolatres,  the  latter  asserting, 
the  former  denying,  that  Christ's  body  was  perishable  ;  the 
Actistetes  and  Ktistolatres,  the  former  asserting,  the  latter 

1  Hagenbach,  i.  279;  also  Stanley's  East.  Church,  pp.  231,  234. 

2  Baur,  ii.  118. 


THE  TWO  NATURES.  85 

denying,  that  Christ's  body,  after  the  entrance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  was  uncreated ;  the  Agnoetes,  who  claimed  that  if 
Christ  was  really  man  like  us,  he  could  not  have  been 
omniscient.1 

The  Monophysite  faith,  as  such,  can  be  found  to-day,  I 
believe,  only  in  the  churches  of  the  East;  its  followers 
being  called,  in  Alexandria,  Copts,  in  Armenia,  Arme- 
nians, in  Syria  and  Mesopotamia,  Jacobites.2  Without 
its  formidable  name,  however,  it  can  easily  be  encoun- 
tered in  any  Orthodox  community  in  Christendom  j  this 
being  the  special  form  of  error,  apparently,  into  which 
the  new  convert  to  Orthodoxy  is  most  liable  to  fall  before 
his  natural  reason  has  learned  to  thread  the  intricate  path 
which  in  Orthodox  regions  leads  between  nature  on  the 
one  hand,  and  person  on  the  other.3 

I  am  aware  how  uninviting  and  how  bewildering  must 
seem  to  many  of  you  these  controversies  of  an  age  fortu- 
nately long  gone  by ;  nor  can  I  hope  that  I  have  made  as 
clear  to  you  as  I  would  like  the  bearing  which  they  have 
upon  the  faith  of  Christendom  to-day.  To  show  this  as 
plainly  as  possible,  however,  let  me  present  once  more,  in 
a  few  words,  the  ground  over  which  I  have  just  tried  to 
lead  you. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  half  stated  at  Nicsea  in 
325,  and  completed  at  Constantinople  in  381,  left  still 
undecided  the  relation  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
in  Christ.    Two  views  were   possible,  and  were  each  in 

1  Baur,  ii.  120.  2  Gieseler's  Church  Hist.  i.  327. 

8  Comp.  Chris.  Ex.,  i860,  p.  265,  article  by  F.  H.  Hedge,  D.  D. 


86  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY. 

turn  held  and  considered  Orthodox;  according  to  the 
one  the  divine  and  the  human  in  Christ  were  wholly  dis- 
tinct, though  intimately  united :  according  to  the  other, 
the  divine  nature  alone  was  real,  while  the  humanity 
became  absorbed  and  disappeared.  To  take  the  one 
position  seemed  to  make  two  beings  instead  of  one ;  to 
take  the  other  seemed  to  make  the  human  Jesus  a  spectre 
or  fiction. 

The  church  in  its  Creed  of  Chalcedon  quietly  took 
both  positions  at  once,  as  though  there  were  no  contra- 
diction between  them.  It  declared  that  in  Christ  were 
two  natures  in  one  person. 

February  I,  1874. 


V. 

THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY. 

THE  nature  of  Christ  and  his  relation  to  God  were  not 
the  only  questions  which  troubled  the  early  church. 
They  were  the  first,  as  was  natural ;  yet  long  before  they 
were  finally  settled,  others  were  pressing  for  an  answer. 
Not  one  of  the  fundamental  truths  of  religion  was  found 
to  be  decided  for  Christendom  in  advance.  If  the  nature 
of  God  was  left  undetermined  by  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
no  less  so,  as  it  proved,  was  the  nature  of  man.  The 
time  came,  of  course,  when  the  Christian  mind  descended 
from  regions  of  abstract  speculation,  and  began  to  con- 
sider the  problems  of  actual  life.  Life  was  full  of  temp- 
tation and  evil.  Human  nature  itself  seemed  sinful  and 
perverted.  How  came  it  so  ?  Whence  did  sin  come  and 
how  was  it  to  be  rooted  out  ?  How  far  was  man  himself 
responsible  for  it,  or  capable  of  resisting  it?  How  did 
Christianity  help  him  in  overcoming  it? 

So  far  as  the  Bible  was  concerned,  these  questions 
stood  on  the  same  footing  with  that  in  regard  to  the 
nature  of  Christ.  The  Scriptures,  when  interrogated, 
gave  an  equivocal  reply.  They  presented  two  distinct 
theories  of  human  nature. 


88  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

In  the  Gospels,  as  you  know,  although  no  doctrine  is 
laid  down  on  this  point  more  than  on  others,  yet  man  is 
represented  in  the  simplest  and  most  natural  way,  as  a 
responsible  moral  being,  who  is  to  "do  the  will  of  his 
Father  in  heaven,"  to  love  his  neighbor  and  his  enemy 
alike,  to  use  whatever  talents  were  given  him,  whether  five 
or  two,  and  to  win  the  kingdom  of  heaven  by  right- 
eousness. Had  the  Gospels  alone  constituted  Christian- 
ity, this  would  have  been  the  simple  code  of  Christian 
morals.  In  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  however,  another  theory 
appears.  Unexpected  exigencies  had  arisen,  as  we  know, 
before  Paul  wrote,  and  his  doctrine  shaped  itself  accord- 
ing to  the  new  necessities.  If  the  Gentiles  were  to  enter 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  equal  terms  with  the  Jews,  and 
even  before  them ;  in  other  words,  if  Israel  had  been 
promised  the  Kingdom  and  the  Messiah,  as  they  certainly 
had,  yet  had  not  received  them;  why  was  it?  These 
questions  were  certainly  asked,  and  Paul  found  no  answer 
ready  but  that  which  he  gives  so  explicitly  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  "They  are  not  all  Israel,  which  are  of 
Israel."1  Just  as  Jehovah,  of  his  own  arbitrary  choice, 
had  selected  one  rather  than  another  from  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  saying,  "Jacob  have  I  loved,  Esau  have  I 
hated," 2  so  he  had  again  chosen  the  Gentiles  before  the 
Jews.  But  was  this  not  unjust?  No!  there  is  no 
injustice  with  God.  His  will  is  his  law,  which  no  one 
must  question.3  Had  he  not  said  to  Moses,  "  I  will  have 
mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  and  I  will  have  com- 

1  Rom.  ix.  6.  2  ix.  13  ;  Mai.  i.  2,  3.  3  Rom.  ix.  20. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  89 

passion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion."1  Nay,  had 
he  not  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  for  the  very  purpose  of 
showing  his  own  power  and  glory  ? 2  Not  only  therefore 
hath  he  mercy  on  whom  he  will,  but  "whom  he  will  he 
hardeneth."  8  Man's  merit  does  not  come  into  the  ques- 
tion. "It  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that 
runneth,  but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy."  4  The  rejec- 
tion of  the  Jew  and  acceptance  of  the  Gentile  are  part  of 
the  eternal  plan  of  God.  "  For  whom  he  did  foreknow, 
he  also  did  predestinate ;  whom  he  did  predestinate, 
them  he  also  called ;  and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also 
justified."5  To  be  sure,  there  is  a  "remnant"  of  the 
Jews  still  to  be  saved ;  but,  even  this  is  not  through  their 
desert,  but  only  because  by  God's  grace  they  were  elected 
to  be  saved.  "Even  so  at  the  present  time  there  is  a 
remnant  according  to  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  by 
grace,  then  is  it  no  more  of  works."  6  It  is  God's  grace 
alone  that  saves  one  and  condemns  another.  And  God's 
grace  is  won,  not  by  the  works  of  the  law,  but  by  faith 
in  Christ.  Just  as  Abraham  "believed  God,  and  it  was 
counted  to  him  for  righteousness ;  "  so  we,  "  being  jus- 
tified by  faith,  have  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ." 7  Indeed,  in  Christ  the  curse  of  sin  and 
death  which  came  upon  the  race  in  Adam,  was  finally 
removed.  "As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world, 
and  death  by  sin ;  .  .  .  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of 

1  Rom.  ix.  15;  Ex.  xxxiii.  19.        2  Rom.  ix.  17 ;  Ex.  ix.  16. 
8  Rom.  ix.  18.         *  Rom.  ix.  16.  5  Rom.  viii.  29,  30. 

8  Rom.  xi.  5,  6.         7  Rom.  iv.  3;  v.  I. 


90  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

one  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of 
life."1  How  far  Paul  would  have  modified  this  rigid 
theory  had  he  undertaken  to  discuss  the  general  problem 
of  evil,  instead  of  simply  meeting  an  immediate  per- 
plexity, we  cannot  tell ;  but  such  is  his  reply  to  his  fellow- 
countrymen  who  ask  him  why  the  teachings  of  all  the 
prophets  have  been  reversed,  and  the  Jew  is  cut  off  while 
the  Gentile  is  saved. 

Such  being  the  two  views  of  human  nature  presented 
by  the  Christian  Scriptures,  we  cannot  be  surprised  at 
finding  once  more  a  corresponding  difference  in  the 
teachings  of  the  church  Fathers.  At  first  the  Gospel 
view  seems  to  have  prevailed  almost  universally;  Paul's 
doctrines  either  not  being  familiarly  known,  or  being 
considered,  as  they  really  were,  intended  for  the  first  cent- 
ury rather  than  for  the  second  or  third.  That  man  was 
naturally  corrupt,  or  had  lost  the  power  to  do  right,  or, 
however  affected  by  Adam's  fall,  was  in  any  way  involved 
in  Adam's  guilt,  are  thoughts  that  do  not  seem  to  have 
disturbed  the  minds  of  those  early  generations.  There 
is  Orthodox  authority  for  saying  that  no  Greek  Father, 
no  Alexandrian  theologian,  not  even  the  great  father  of 
Orthodoxy,  Athanasius  himself,  admitted  any  theory  of 
Adam's  sin  which  robbed  man  of  the  power  to  do  right, 
or  touched  his  moral  freedom.2 

Says  Clemens  of  Alexandria,  "  Man  is  the  most  beau- 
tiful hymn  to  the  praise  of  Deity." 8    Says  Tertullian,  who 

1  Rom.  v.  12,  18. 

2  Comp.  Hagenbach's  Hist,  of  Doctrines,  i.  148,  160,  &c. 

3  Coh.  p.  78.     Quoted  by  Hagenbach. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  9 1 

came  as  near  as  any  of  the  earlier  writers  to  the  later 
thought  of  Augustine,  "  Man,  though  not  naturally  good, 
becomes  so  by  free  determination.  God  gave  the  law 
that  man  might  submit  his  will  to  the  divine,  and  so  exalt 
himself  to  the  angels."  "  The  soul  of  man  springs  from 
the  breath  of  God,  intelligent  in  its  own  nature,  free, 
rational,  supreme."  Even  in  its  state  of  corruption, 
"there  is  a  portion  of  good  in  the  soul  of  that  original 
divine  and  genuine  good  which  is  its  proper  nature.  For 
that  which  is  derived  from  God  is  rather  obscured  than 
extinguished."  "Some  men  are  very  good,  some  very 
bad ;  but  even  in  the  worst  is  something  good,  and  in  the 
best  something  bad."  "As  no  soul  is  without  sin,  so 
none  is  without  the  seeds  of  good." 1 

The  Jewish  narrative  of  the  Fall  was  very  differently 
interpreted  by  different  church  teachers ;  some  taking  it 
literally,  others,  and  I  think  the  greater  number,  under- 
standing it  as  pure  allegory.  According  to  Clemens  of 
Alexandria,  "  Moses,  describing  allegorically  divine  pru- 
dence, called  it  the  tree  of  life,  and  placed  it  in  Para- 
dise." 2  Origen  called  the  narrative  "  A  type  of  what 
takes  place  in  free  moral  agents  everywhere  and  at  all 
times."3  "Who  that  has  understanding,"  says  Origen 
with  characteristic  frankness,  "  will  suppose  that  the  first, 
second,  and  third  day,  evening  and  morning,  existed  with- 
out sun,  moon,  and  stars,  and  that  the  first  day  was  without 
sky  ?  And  who  so  foolish  as  to  suppose  that  God,  after 
the  manner  of  a  husbandman,  planted  a  paradise,  and 

1  De  Anima,  xxii ;  xli.         2  Strom,  r.  II.        3  See  Hagen.  i.  161. 


92  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

placed  in  it  a  tree  of  life,  visible  and  palpable,  so  that  one 
tasting  of  the  fruit  by  bodily  teeth,  obtained  life."  * 

But  whatever  their  interpretation  of  the  Scripture  narra- 
tive, these  Fathers  were  quite  agreed  that  man's  freedom 
of  will  and  power  of  excellence  remained  unimpaired  by 
Adam's  sin.  On  this  point  their  language  was  explicit. 
"  Free-will,"  says  Irenaeus,  "  is  the  mark  of  the  inefface- 
able image  of  God,  and  the  condition  of  faith."2  "Man 
being  endowed  with  reason,  and  in  this  respect  like 
to  God,  having  been  made  free  in  his  will,  and  with 
power  over  himself,  is  himself  the  cause  to  himself  that 
sometimes  he  becomes  wheat  and  sometimes  chaff."8 
"Punishments  and  good  rewards,"  says  Justin  Martyr, 
"  are  rendered  according  to  the  merit  of  each  man's  action. 
For  if  it  be  fated  that  this  man  be  good,  and  this  other 
evil,  neither  is  the  former  meritorious  nor  the  latter 
blamed.  For  neither  would  a  man  be  worthy  of  reward 
or  praise  did  he  not  of  himself  choose  good,  but  were 
created  for  this  end;  nor  if  he  were  evil,  would  he  be 
worthy  of  punishment,  not  being  evil  of  himself,  but  being 
able  to  be  nothing  but  what  he  was  made."4  "Entire 
freedom  of  will,"  says  Tertullian,  "  was  conferred  on  man, 
so  that  as  master  of  himself  he  might  constantly  encounter 
good  by  spontaneous  observance  of  it,  and  evil  by  sponta- 
neous avoidance.  But  reward,  neither  of  good  nor  of 
evil,  could  be  paid  to  man  who  was  good  or  evil  through 
necessity  and  not  choice."  5     "  The  nature  of  good,"  says 

1  De  Prin.  iv.  16.  2  See  Neander's  Dogmas,  i.  183. 

8  Ag.  Heresies,  iv.  4,  3.         4  Apol.  i.  43.  5  Marcion,  ii.  6. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  93 

Tatian,  "is  brought  to  perfection  in  men  through  their 
freedom  of  choice,  in  order  that  the  bad  man  may  be 
justly  punished,  having  become  depraved  through  his 
own  fault,  but  the  just  man  deservedly  praised  for  virtuous 
deeds,  since  in  the  exercise  of  free  choice  he  refrained 
from  transgressing  the  will  of  God." l  "  The  end  of 
philosophy  is,"  says  Clemens,  quoting  approvingly  from 
the  Stoics,  "to  live  agreeably  to  nature."2  "God  will 
have  us  attain  bliss  by  our  own  exertions." 3  "  The  Crea- 
tor," says  Origen  once  more,  "  gave  the  power  of  free  and 
voluntary  action ;  but  slothfulness,  and  neglect  of  better 
things,  furnished  the  beginning  of  departure  from  good- 
ness. But  to  depart  from  good  is  nothing  else  than  to  be 
made  bad.  To  want  goodness  is  to  be  wicked."  4  In 
other  words,  sin  is  simply  the  absence  of  virtue ;  moral 
evil  is  a  negative  quality ;  a  doctrine  in  which  somewhat 
later  Origen  had  the  concurrence  of  Athanasius.5 

It  is  unnecessary  to  extend  these  quotations  further,  as 
they  point  for  the  most  part  in  one  direction.  Man  is 
free;  his  nature  though  deeply  stained  is  by  no  means 
corrupt ;  the  fall  of  the  first  man  involved  at  worst  but  an 
enfeeble ment  of  man's  moral  power  and  a  proneness  to 
evil ;  evil  and  goodness  are  alike  possible  to  him,  and 
wholly  dependent  upon  his  choice  ;  only  because  they  are 
dependent  upon  his  choice,  can  he  be  called  a  moral 
agent :  this  can  unhesitatingly  be  pronounced  the  pre- 
vailing  doctrine   of  the  Christian   church  at  the  period 

1  Tatian,  vii.  2  Tatian,  ii.  283.  3  Strom,  vi.  12. 

4  De  Prin.  ii.  9,  2.         5  Hagenbach,  i.  293. 


« 
94  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

when  that  first  serious  controversy  upon  the  question 
arose,  which  is  now  to  occupy  your  attention.1 

The  controversy  took  its  name  from  a  certain  monk, 
Pelagius,  whose  personal  history,  notwithstanding  the  im- 
portant part  he  took  in  determining  the  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  the  church  has  suffered  to  pass  into  almost 
entire  oblivion.  We  know  only  that  he  was  a  monk,  that 
he  was  born  either  in  Britain  or  Bretagne,  and  that  he 
was  teaching  in  Rome  with  his  companion  and  follower, 
Ccelestius,  early  in  the  fifth  century.  From  the  accounts 
which  his  opponents  give  us,  we  infer  that  he  was  a  thor- 
ough and  even  learned  student,  of  ascetic  habits,  who 
attacked  the  sins  of  the  day  with  great  moral  earnestness, 
and  was  especially  severe  against  such  as  were  disposed 
to  plead  the  infirmity  or  corruption  of  human  nature  as  an 
excuse  for  their  frailties.2  Such  being  the  character  of  the 
man,  we  cannot  be  surprised  to  find  him  teaching  with 
great  "clearness  and  decision  the  doctrines  which  so  many 
of  the  leaders  of  Christian  thought  had  taught  before  him, 
and  which  had  become  more  important  than  ever,  in  view 
of  a  growing  tendency  to  rely  rather  upon  divine  grace 
than  upon  human  effort. 

Exactly  wha,t  Pelagius  taught  upon  these  points,  we 
learn  chiefly  from  passages  of  his  writings  quoted  against 
him  by  his  adversaries,  and  from  the  acts  of  condemnation 
passed  by  the  councils.3  Its  main  positions  seem  to  have 
been  these  :    While  believing  implicitly  in  the  Trinity,  and 

1  Comp.  Baur's  Christenthum,  ii.  124.  2  Nean.  ii.  572-578. 

8  See  Clarke's  Anti-Pelag.  Writings ;  Pref.  xi. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  95 

even  in  eternal  punishment,1  Pelagius  held :  that  man  is 
wholly  free  in  action  and  choice,  and  able  to  be  perfectly 
good  if  he  will ;  that  Adam's  sin,  which  differed  from 
others  only  in  being  the  first,  affected  his  posterity  only  as 
a  bad  example  always  incites  others  to  evil,  and  as  evil 
once  begun  tends  always  to  become  in  man  a  second 
nature,  and  to  increase  by  its  own  momentum;  that 
divine  grace  is  not  an  absolute  condition  of  virtue  but 
only  a  help  thereto,  and  that  it  strengthens  man,  not 
supernaturally  by  superseding  his  own  action,  but  natu- 
rally, by  reinforcing  his  endeavors,  by  enlightening  his 
mind  through  Gospel  truth,  and  by  forgiveness  of  sin ; 
that  Christ  was  the  highest  pattern  of  righteousness,  and 
his  function  to  exalt  humanity,  not  renew  it ; 2  that  those 
who  know  nothing  of  Christ,  and  infants  born  where  bap- 
tism is  impossible,  may  yet  be  saved ; 3  and  finally,  that 
man  is  good  or  bad  only  in  so  far  as  his  action  is  wholly 
his  own,  and  is  not  determined  by  influences  beyond  his 
control.4 

These  doctrines,  as  I  have  said,  differed  in  no  essential 
point  from  those  which  had  always  prevailed,  and  had 
been,  up  to  that  time,  silently  accepted  in  the  Christian 
church;  except,  perhaps,  in  being  more  systematically 
and  logically  stated  than  ever  before,  in  being  applied 
with  greater  moral  earnestness,  as  well  as  in  being  followed 
more  persistently  to  their  ultimate  conclusions.  Nor  does 
it  appear  that  when  Pelagius  and  Coelestius  first  preached 

^Nean.  ii.  578.  2  Nean.  ii.  617. 

8  Anti-Pelag.  p.  241.  4  Baur,  ii.  124-135. 


96  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

those  doctrines,  they  aroused  any  serious  hostility.  For 
several  years,  these  two  labored  in  Rome,  seeking  to 
elevate  the  moral  tone  of  the  Christian  community,  and 
openly  resisting  what  they  considered  a  disheartening  and 
paralyzing  belief  in  human  corruption ;  yet  the  Roman 
church  was  not  disturbed  by  their  presence,  or  conscious 
of  their  heresy.  It  was  only  when,  in  410,  they  changed 
the  field  of  their  labors  from  Rome  to  Africa,  that  they 
became  suspected  or  that  their  doctrines  were  challenged. 

In  Africa,  they  found  themselves  suddenly  upon  the 
defensive ;  yet  even  here,  as  is  well  known,  not  so  much 
because  of  any  hostile  sentiment  in  the  African  church,  as 
because  of  the  man  who  happened  to  be  at  its  head,  and 
whose  presence  there  seemed  to  determine,  so  far  as  any 
individual  influence  can  ever  determine,  the  religious  his- 
tory of  the  age.  Certainly,  no  one  personality  has  left 
so  visible  an  impress  of  itself  upon  the  doctrinal  faith  of 
Christendom,  as  has  that  of  Saint  Augustine. 

Augustine,  although  not  the  most  learned  of  the  Chris- 
tian Fathers,  is  probably  the  most  familiarly  known  of 
them  all.  Almost  every  one  has  heard  the  story  of  the 
wild  and  passionate  African  youth,  who,  after  a  life  of 
excessive  self-indulgence,  tempered  only  by  his  affection 
for  his  pious  and  devoted  mother,  Monica,  suddenly 
forsook  at  once  his  sensual  indulgences  and  his  religious 
heresies,  and  gave  himself  to  the  exclusive  service  of  the 
Catholic  church.  The  main  facts  in  his  career  are  these. 
He  was  born  in  354,  in  a  little  town  near  Carthage,  was  a 
college  student  in  Carthage,  where  he  distinguished  him- 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  97 

self  alike  by  his  unlicensed  gayety  and  by  his  admiration 
of  the  Latin  classics  and  abomination  of  the  Greek  j  he 
was  then  for  many  years  a  teacher  of  rhetoric  and  oratory 
in  Carthage  and  Rome,  attached  himself  to  the  heretical 
sect  of  the  Manichaeans,  led  a  life  of  unscrupulous  sensu- 
alism, redeemed  only  by  certain  higher  longings  stirred 
in  his  soul  by  the  teachings  of  Cicero,  was  converted 
by  Ambrose  at  Milan,  was  baptized  in  387,  returned  to 
Carthage,  and  in  395  was  made  assistant-bishop  of  Hippo, 
an  important  seaport  town  near  Carthage,  where  he  died 
in  430.  When  Pelagius  came  to  Carthage  in  410,  to 
continue  there  the  missionary  work  in  which  he  had  been 
engaged  in  Rome,  Augustine  was  the  virtual  head  of  the 
African  church.1 

If  we  ask  now,  after  ascribing  due  influence  to  the 
peculiar  personal  experiences  through  which  Augustine 
had  passed,  why  he  so  resolutely  opposed  doctrines  which 
until  then  had  been  deemed  innocent,  there  are  two  facts 
which  are  worthy  our  attention,  as  helping  us  to  our 
answer.  How  much  influence  they  are  likely  to  have  had 
in  moulding  his  theological  belief,  I  leave  you  to  judge. 

The  first  of  these  is,  that  at  just  about  this  period  the 
Church,  as  an  outward  organization  with  doctrines  and 
ordinances  essential  to  salvation,  was  becoming  by  rapid 
steps  a  historic  reality.  Not  even  yet  a  complete  hier- 
archy, with  a  single  papal  head,  it  had  already  taken 
ideal  shape  in  many  minds,  and  Augustine  seems  to 
have  been  one  of  the  first  to  understand  all  that  its  name 

1  Comp.  Confessions  of  Augustine. 
7 


98  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

implied.  Indeed,  so  far  did  Augustine  go  in  his  estimate 
of  the  authority  of  the  church,  that  he  declared  "he 
would  not  believe  the  Gospel  itself,  unless  the  Church 
compelled  him  to  do  so."1  Now  the  central  idea  of 
the  church  as  a  hierarchy  lies  in  its  accomplishing  for 
man  what  he  cannot  accomplish  for  himself;  in  its 
possessing  the  sole  means  of  salvation.  Through  the 
administration  of  its  ordinances,  especially  through  the 
rite  of  baptism,  and  through  this  alone,  man  escapes 
damnation  and  enters  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is  evident 
at  once,  therefore,  how  this  new  necessity  of  Christian 
thought  must  modify  the  old  doctrines,  especially  the 
doctrine  of  human  freedom.  The  more  man  can  do  for 
himself,  the  less  the  church  need  do  for  him.  If  under 
any  circumstances,  whether  by  being  born  in  heathen 
lands,  or  by  dying  in  early  infancy,  one  can  enter  heaven 
unbaptized,  the  necessity,  and  therefore  the  majesty,  of 
the  church  in  so  far  suffers. 

Starting  from  this  point,  the  motive  is  apparent,  and 
the  very  process  of  reasoning  becomes  obvious,  by  which 
a  mind  like  Augustine's  could  be  led  to  his  doctrine  of 
total  depravity.  Baptism  alone  makes  one  a  member 
of  God's  church,  and  thus  secures  salvation.  Baptism, 
however,  means  the  cleansing  of  the  soul  from  its  impu- 
rities ;  in  other  words,  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  But  the 
new-born  child,  which  must  be  baptized  as.  well  as  others 
if  it  is  to  be  saved,  has  committed  no  sins ;  how  therefore 
can  baptism  have  any   efficacy  in  its   case?    Only  by 

1  Augustine  on  the  Manichaean  Heresy,  p.  101. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  99 

supposing  it  sinful  without  sinning ;  that  is,  sinful  through 
the  sin  of  its  parents.  It  must  have  inherited  both  cor- 
ruption and  guilt.1 

This  is  arguing  backward  with  a  witness,  and  making 
the  tree  spring  from  its  branches  rather  than  its  roots ;  yet 
it  is  no  unfair  statement,  so  far  as  we  can  now  judge,  of 
the  actual  logical  process  by  which  the  dark  doctrine  of 
total  and  inherited  depravity  was  first  reached.  In  order 
to  have  a  church  which  should  be  essential  to  salvation,  it 
was  seen  that  baptism  into  that  church  must  somehow  be 
made  indispensable  for  all ;  but  baptism  cannot  be  indis- 
pensable to  the  child,  unless  it  is  sinful  j  therefore  the 
child  must  be  sinful;  therefore  we  must  declare  every 
soul  born  corrupt.  One  of  the  explicit  charges  which 
Augustine  made  against  Pelagius  was  that  he  "robbed 
children  of  their  Savior."  In  other  words,  if  the  soul  is 
born  pure,  as  Pelagius  held,  it  does  not  need  to  be 
cleansed,  and  so  needs  no  Savior  to  cleanse  it ;  if  born 
impure,  as  Augustine  held,  then  it  must  be  cleansed,  and 
so  must  have  a  Savior.  Once  more,  the  argument  might 
strike  the  secular  mind  as  somewhat  peculiar  j  not,  these 
little  souls  are  in  danger,  therefore  they  must  be  saved, 
but,  these  little  souls  must  be  saved,  therefore  they  are  in 
danger.  The  necessity  of  the  church  must,  at  all  hazards, 
be  vindicated  ;  and  if  without  inherited  guilt  there  can  be 
no  church,  then  inherited  guilt  we  must  have. 

The  other  influence  to  which  I  have  alluded  as  possi- 
bly modifying  Augustine's  theology,  is  to  be  found  in  the 

1  Comp.  Baur,  ii.  143-146. 


IOO  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Manichsean  faith  of  which  he  was  an  adherent  for  several 
years  before  entering  the  true  church.  Manichaeism  is  one 
of  those  mysterious  religious  systems,  born  evidently  in  for- 
eign soil,  which  in  those  early  years  connected  themselves 
so  intimately  with  Christianity  that  it  is  almost  impossible, 
at  this  distance,  to  determine  whether  they  were  Pagan 
religions  or  Christian  heresies.  Originating  in  Persia  in 
the  third  century  through  the  agency  of  a  Persian  philos- 
opher, Manes,  and  offering  itself  at  first  apparently  as  a 
reformed  Zoroastrian  movement,  Manichaeism  soon  con- 
nected itself  with  Christianity,  discovered  in  Christian 
doctrines  its  own  fundamental  principles,  and  became, 
through  the  superior  purity  and  beauty  of  its  moral  code, 
so  fascinating  to  the  Christian  mind,  that  it  continued  a 
"  thorn  in  the  flesh  of  the  Roman  church  "  from  the  third 
century  through  the  Middle  Ages.  Among  its  converts 
was  Augustine,  who  for  nearly  ten  years  studied  its  deep 
philosophy,  and  received  from  it  certain  intellectual  influ- 
ences from  which  there  is  abundant  reason  to  believe  that 
he  never  wholly  freed  himself.1 

Manichaeism  solved  the  problem  of  evil  in  the  most 
direct  and  simple  style,  by  supposing  two  primitive  powers 
in  the  universe,  an  eternal  good  and  an  eternal  evil ;  a 
Prince  of  Light  and  a  Prince  of  Darkness ;  Spirit  and 
Matter ;  Soul  and  Body.  In  Christ,  it  saw  the  Spirit  of 
Light  coming  down  to  free  other  enchained  souls  of  light. 
In  the  Christian  process  of  redemption,  it  saw  the  longing 

1  Augustine's  Confessions,  B.  iv. ;  Baur.  ii.  157  ;  Putnam,  March, 
1856,  p.  230,  article  by  F.  H.  Hedge,  D.  D. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  10 1 

and  striving  of  nature  to  purify  itself,  and  rise  out  of  dark- 
ness into  light.1  These  ideas,  notwithstanding  the  eager 
disavowals  of  both  Augustine  himself  and  his  followers,  it 
is  impossible  not  to  trace  in  those  theories  of  human 
nature  with  which,  since  Augustine  forsook  Manichaeism 
and  entered  the  Christian  church,  Christendom  has  grown 
so  familiar.  According  to  Manichaean  doctrine,  good 
and  evil  are  eternal ;  there  are  two  souls  in  man,  a  good 
soul  and  an  evil  soul.  According  to  Augustine,  good  and 
evil  contend  in  man  on  equal  terms  ;  sin  is  a  positive  and 
independent  power  in  the  universe,  divine  grace  is  abso- 
lutely good,  human  nature  is  absolutely  evil.  Indeed, 
Augustine's  ablest  opponent,  Julian,  pointedly  declared 
that  Augustine's  master,  Manes,  differed  from  his  follower 
only  in  being  more  consistent.  If  man  is  created  evil,  his 
Creator  must  be  the  Prince  of  Evil,  or  else  God  must 
himself  be  evil ;  a  logical  conclusion  which  Manes  would 
accept,  but  which  Augustine  arbitrarily  denied.2 

Such  being  the  circumstances  of  Augustine's  life,  as  well 
as  the  character  of  his  mind,  we  can  no  longer  be  surprised 
to  find  him  drawing  his  theories  of  human  nature  rather 
from  Paul's  Epistles  than  from  the  Gospels;  or  to  find 
him  offering  stern  resistance  to  the  teachings  of  Pelagius 
and  Coelestius,  and  throwing  his  official  influence  against 
both  the  men  and  their  doctrines.  Pelagius  soon  left 
Africa  for  Jerusalem ;  but  Coelestius,  who  remained  in 
Carthage,  was  allowed  no  rest  until  he  was  finally  sum- 
moned before  a  synod  to  answer  for  his  errors.  The 
1  Baur,  ii.  66-73.     2  Confessions,  B.  vii. ;  Baur,  ii.  158. 


102  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

first  formal  step  in  this  controversy  was  the  action  of  this 
synod  in  412,  by  which  Coelestius  was  excommunicated 
for  holding  these  six  heresies  :  1.  Adam  would  have  died 
even  if  he  had  not  sinned.  2.  Adam's  sin  injured  himself 
alone.  3.  Infants  are  born  in  the  state  of  Adam  before 
he  fell.  4.  Mankind  neither  died  in  Adam  nor  rose 
again  in  Christ.  5.  The  Law  no  less  than  the  Gospel 
brings  men  to  Christ.  6.  There  were  sinless  men  before 
Christ.1 

While  these  severe  measures  were  taken  in  Africa,  the 
matter  seems  to  have  been  viewed  in  Palestine,  whither 
Pelagius  had  next  gone,  in  a  very  different  light,  and  no 
more  alarm  to  have  been  felt  at  his  doctrines,  than  had 
been  felt  before  in  Rome.  In  415,  at  Augustine's  solici- 
tation, a  synod  was  called,  which  was  soon  followed  by 
another;  yet  so  little  interest  was  shown,  and  so  little 
hostility  to  Pelagius  could  be  aroused,  that  no  condemna- 
tion was  secured.2  Worse  still,  Zosimus,  Bishop  of  Rome, 
whose  decision  in  doctrinal-  matters,  owing  to  the  promi- 
nence which  the  Roman  church  was  fast  assuming,  was  of 
the  utmost  importance,  could  not  be  induced  to  discover 
heresy  in  either  Pelagius  or  Coelestius ;  but  on  the  contrary 
in  a  letter  to  the  bishops  of  North  Africa,  took  occasion  to 
say,  "Would  that  some  of  you  had  been  present  when 
Pelagius's  letter  was  read.  Scarcely  could  some  refrain 
from  tears  to  find  that  a  man  so  thoroughly  Orthodox 
could  yet  be  made  the  object  of  suspicion."3 

1  Augustine's  Works  Anti-Pelag.  xi.     Hefele,  ii.  105. 

2  Nean.  ii.  585.  3  ii.  589. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  103 

This  rendered  necessary  those  decisive  measures  which 
the  ecclesiastics  of  earlier  days  knew  so  well  how  to  employ 
when  objectionable  doctrines  were  to  be  condemned.  A 
council  was  called  in  North  Africa,  in  418,  at  which  nine 
canons  were  adopted,  embodying  the  Augustinian  ideas 
of  inherited  sin  and  grace,  influences  were  successfully 
used  in  Rome  to  win  over  the  Emperor  to  the  North 
African  side,  imperial  edicts  began  to  appear  against 
Pelagius  and  his  followers,  until  finally  the  Roman  bishop, 
Zosimus,  was  fairly  frightened  into  withdrawing  his  former 
edict,  and  in  418,  accepted  the  decrees  of  the  North 
African  Council.  By  these  methods  of  theological  debate, 
somewhat  less  startling,  yet  no  less  conclusive,  than  those 
employed  at  Nicsea  and  Ephesus,  the  final  condemnation 
of  Pelagius  was  secured ;  and  the  Christian  church  ac- 
cepted, at  the  hands  of  Augustine,  a  theory  of  sin,  grace, 
and  free-will,  at  which  Origen,  Irenseus,  or  Tertullian 
would  have  turned  pale  with  dismay. 

It  is  mortifying  to  add,  that  the  disgraceful  rule  which 
we  have  found  hitherto  to  hold  wherever  refusal  to  sub- 
scribe to  a  new  doctrine  involved  the  loss  of  a  bishopric, 
met  with  no  exception  here.  The  eighteen  Italian  bishops, 
who  at  first  stood  out  on  the  side  of  Pelagius,  nearly  all 
repented  in  the  end,  and  saved  their  sees.  The  only  con- 
spicuous instance  to  the  contrary  was  Julian,  Bishop  of 
Apulia,  whose  bold  denunciation  of  his  cowardly  asso- 
ciates, and  superb  vindication  of  the  condemned  heresy, 
constitute  the  single  element  of  nobleness  in  this  most 
ignoble  controversy. 


104  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

The  theory  of  human  nature  which  thus  became  the 
doctrine  and  belief  of  the  Christian  church,  has  at  least 
the  merit  of  great  simplicity  and  consistency.  It  has,  in 
fact,  precisely  the  unity  to  be  expected  in  the  product  of 
a  single  mind  following  a  single  definite  purpose,  and 
willing  to  carry  its  thoughts  to  their  ultimate  consequences. 
The  main  points  of  the  theory  are  too  familiar  to  need 
here,  even  if  there  were  space,  any  but  the  briefest  state- 
ment. Augustine  simply  took  Paul's  explanation  of  the 
rejection  of  the  Jews,  and  made  it,  with  some  enlarge- 
ments, a  universal  theory  of  human  nature. 

Adam,  according  to  Augustine,  if  he  had  not  sinned, 
"  would  not  have  been  divested  of  his  body,  but  would 
have  been  clothed  upon  with  immortality  and  incorrup- 
tion."  Through  his  sin,  death  became  the  lot  of  man. 
Through  his  sin  also  human  nature  became  burdened 
with  infinite  guilt ;  his  guilt  being  imputed  to  the  whole 
race.  The  race  is  wholly  corrupt,  therefore,  and  incapable 
of  itself  of  any  knowledge  or  any  virtue.  No  effort  of  its 
own  can  help  it,  for  every  effort  springs  from  its  corrupt 
nature ;  it  can  be  helped  only  by  the  free  grace  of 
God,  offered  through  Christ.  This  grace  is  received  by 
baptism,  which  cleanses  the  soul  of  its  guilt.  Without 
baptism,  no  soul  can  be  saved;  and  baptism  can  be 
administered  only  by  the  church.  The  good  which  man 
accomplishes,  and  the  salvation  he  secures,  are  through 
no  merit  of  his  own,  but  only  through  the  grace  of  God. 

1  Anti-Pel.  p.  5.   Comp.  De  libero  arbitrio ;  De  Natura  et  Gra- 
tia ;  De  Peccato  Originali. 


THE  PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  105 

Not  even  all  the  baptized  are  saved,  but  only  those 
who  are  elected  to  be  saved ;  while  all  others,  by  God's 
absolute  and  arbitrary  will,  are  pre-ordained  to  condem- 
nation. 

No  system  more  complete,  or  pursuing  its  conse- 
quences with  more  relentless  consistency,  was  ever  de- 
vised. But  when  this  is  said  all  is  said.  To  find  any 
basis  for  the  system  either  in  reason,  or  in  Scripture, 
outside  of  Paul's  Epistles,  has  always  proved  beyond  the 
power  of  its  most  skilful  advocates.  Indeed,  before  the 
death  of  its  author,  it  had  already  been  riddled  through 
and  through  by  Julian  and  others,  and  arguments  brought 
against  it  which  remain  to  this  day  unanswered.1  From 
its  first  proposition,  which  involves  the  palpable  paradox 
that  a  finite  being  committed  an  infinite  sin  with  infinite 
consequences,  and  its  second  proposition  relating  to 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  guilt,  which  rests  upon  a  false 
interpretation  of  Rom.  v.  12,2  to  its  last  assertion,  each 
statement  rests  for  its  support  solely  upon  the  ingenuity 
of  the  mind  that  devised  it.  Nevertheless,  Augustine's 
point  was  gained.  Ecclesiastical  doctrines  are  deter- 
mined, as  it  seems,  not  by  the  truth  or  piety  that  is  in 
them,  but  simply  by  the  votes  that  can  be  counted  for 
them;  and  the  votes  of  the  North  African  church  ac- 
cepted Augustine  and  rejected  Pelagius. 

At  the  same  time,  although  my  present  object  is  to 
state  doctrines,  not  to  discuss  them,  it  is  impossible  to  turn 
from  this  subject  without  some  slight  recognition  of  the 
1  Baur,  ii.  147,  148.  2  Nean.  ii.  609;  Anti-Pel.  p.  12. 


106  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY. 

deep  injury  done  to  the  Christian  church  by  laying  upon 
it  the  needless  burden  of  this  most  repulsive  and  demor- 
alizing dogma.  No  single  doctrine  of  the  Orthodox  creed 
has  elicited  more  frequent  or  emphatic  protests  from  the 
purer  minds  of  Orthodoxy  itself  than  this ;  if,  indeed,  the 
doctrine  in  its  completeness  can  be  said  to  have  ever 
gained  the  acceptance  of  Catholic  Christendom.  So  far, 
at  least,  as  predestination  is  concerned,  the  doctrine 
remained  in  controversy  for  several  centuries.  At  the 
close  of  the  fifth  century,  so  strong  had  been  the  opposi- 
tion to  the  strict  Augustinian  dogma  that  three  councils 
were  found  necessary  to  reconsider  it ;  two  of  which 
rejected  it,1  while  the  third 2  reaffirmed  it.  In  the  ninth 
century  the  whole  question  was  reopened  by  the  monk 
Gottschalk,  who  sought  to  bring  the  church  back  to  the 
doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  but  was  condemned 
at  Mentz  in  848,  and  imprisoned  for  life.  In  855,  at  the 
Council  of  Valence,  this  action  was  partially  reversed,  and 
the  subject  was  left  to  later  generations  for  its  final  solu- 
tion.3 Protestantism  has  shown  itself,  on  the  whole,  more 
hospitable  to  Augustine  than  Romanism. 

Even  before  Augustine's  death,  the  natural  moral  con- 
sequences of  the  system  began  to  appear.  In  426, 
Augustine  was  urged  to  remonstrate  with  certain  monks  of 
Adrumetum,  who  were  applying  his  theories  in  the  follow- 
ing highly  objectionable  way.     "  Of  what  use,"  said  the 

1  Aries,  472;   Lyons,  475.  2  Orange,  529. 

8  Neander's  Dogmas,  ii.  383,  447 ;  Baur's  Christenthum,  il 
181-215. 


THE   PELAGIAN   CONTROVERSY.  107 

artless  monks,  "are  all  doctrines  or  precepts?  Human 
efforts  can  avail  nothing ;  it  is  God  that  worketh  in  us  to 
will  and  to  do.  Nor  is  it  right  to  reproach  or  to  punish 
those  who  are  in  error  or  who  commit  sin ;  for  it  is  none 
of  their  fault  that  they  act  thus.  Without  grace  they 
cannot  do  otherwise ;  nor  can  they  do  anything  to  merit 
grace."1 

The  perplexity  of  the  monks  of  Adrumetum  remains 
a  perplexity  to  the  present  day.  Alas  for  the  church  that 
must  live  in  this  constant  moral  bewilderment !  Alas  for 
the  church  which  must  teach  itself  to  believe  at  one  and 
the  same  moment  that  good  or  evil  conduct  does  not 
depend  on  man's  effort,  and  that  man  is  responsible  for 
his  good  or  evil  conduct !  Alas  for  the  community  that 
must  reconcile  with  its  conscience  a  dogma  which  sets 
conscience  at  defiance,  and  must  reconcile  with  reason  a 
system  by  which  all  reason  is  abjured  ! 

Christianity,  since  the  hour  of  its  birth,  has  had  no 
burden  laid  upon  it  so  heavy  to  be  borne,  no  belief 
attached  to  it  which  so  stirs  the  sorrow  of  its  friends  and 
the  contempt  of  its  foes,  as  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of 
Original  Sin  and  Predestination. 

February  15,  1874. 

1  Nean.  ii.  625. 


VI. 


THE    CATHOLIC    CHURCH. 

HHHE  preceding  lectures  have  traced  the  formation, 
-*-  during  the  first  four  centuries,  of  the  principal 
Christian  doctrines  relating  to  the  nature  of  Christ  and 
the  nature  of  man.  I  recur  to  the  point  now,  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  process  by  which  these  doctrines 
have  been  formed.  That  process,  as  you  have  perhaps 
noticed,  has  been  in  all  cases  the  same  ;  and  would  have 
been  found  the  same  had  we  examined  the  many  other 
subordinate  beliefs  which  were  adopted  by  Christendom 
during  the  same  period.  Not  one,  as  we  have  seen,  was 
drawn  directly  from  the  Christian  Scriptures ;  but  each 
was  fixed,  in  turn,  by  one  or  more  councils,  whose  duty  it 
was,  in  each  case,  to  determine  among  several  existing 
doctrines  which  should  be  accepted  as  the  true  belief  of 
Christendom.  Had  these  councils,  or  something  corre- 
sponding with  them,  never  been  held,  we  should  have  to- 
day no  definite  or  uniform  articles  of  Christian  faith.  In 
other  words,  the  belief  of  Christendom  has  been  created, 
or  determined,  by  its  councils. 

The  question  arises  at  this  point,  therefore,  what  were 
those   councils,  and  where  did  they  find  the   authority 


THE  CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  109 

which  they  assumed  to  fix  the  faith  of  Christendom  ?  We 
find  them  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  Catholic  or  Uni- 
versal church,  and  purporting  to  be  the  mouthpiece  of 
such  a  church.  What  do  they  mean  by  this  ?  What  is 
this  Catholic  church  ?  When  and  how  did  it  come  into 
existence,  and  whence  did  it  receive  its  authority?  It 
was  the  final  appeal  of  all  those  who  had  the  creation  of 
doctrines  in  charge ;  upon  its  authority,  therefore,  rests 
the  title  of  each  and  every  Christian  dogma.  It  be- 
comes of  the  utmost  importance,  then,  to  know  what 
this  so-called  Catholic  church  is. 

As  usual,  the  Scriptures  do  not  help  us  in  this  inquiry. 
The  name  Catholic  church  is  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Scriptures  j  neither  is  the  thing.  The  word  "  church  "  is 
found  twice,  it  is  true,  in  our  translation  of  the  Gospels ; l 
but  even  in  those  cases  it  might  and  probably  should  be 
otherwise  translated.  The  original  term  "  ecclesia  "  had 
at  that  time  no  ecclesiastical  signification  whatever,  but 
was  the  word  commonly  employed  by  the  Greeks  to 
denote  any  general  gathering  of  the  people.  It  meant 
"  assembly ; "  and  is  the  same  word  which  in  another 
place2  is  correctly  translated  "assembly."  When  Jesus 
used  it  or  its  equivalent,  therefore,  on  the  occasions 
mentioned  above,  the  disciples  would  naturally  under- 
stand him  as  alluding  to  the  body  of  his  followers  in 
general,  whether  united  in  an  ecclesiastical  organization 
or  not.  That  Jesus  himself  created  no  such  organization, 
does  not  need  to  be  proved  to  those  who  read  in  Scrip- 
1  Matt.  xvi.  18;  xviii.  17.  2  Acts  xix.  39. 


IIO  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

ture  language  only  what  is  there.  Not  only  do  the 
Gospels  give  no  hint  of  such  an  act,  but  they  show  no 
such  desire  on  the  part  of  Jesus  himself.  He  seems  to 
have  no  purpose  or  anxiety  beyond  the  simple  utter- 
ance of  his  lofty  thought,  and  its  practical  exemplification 
in  a  holy  life.  It  is  an  indisputable  fact  that  no  evidence 
exists  of  any  steps  on  his  part  towards  separating  his 
followers  from  the  synagogues,  or  uniting  them  in  a  dis- 
tinct body  by  themselves.  Jesus  left  his  followers,  so  far 
as  ecclesiastical  organization  is  concerned,  just  as  he 
found  them. 

The  testimony  of  the  Gospels  on  this  point  is  repeated 
by  the  Book  of  Acts.  If  Jesus  founded  no  church,  no 
more  do  his  immediate  disciples  seem  to  have  done  so. 
I  have  already  pointed  out  the  fact  that  in  the  only  ac- 
counts which  we  have  of  the  disciples  who  gathered  in 
Jerusalem  after  Jesus'  death,  there  is  nothing  in  their 
outward  observances  to  distinguish  them  from  their  fellow 
Jews.  They  evidently  continued  for  some  time,  not  only 
to  read  and  honor  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  but  also  to 
frequent,  as  before,  the  Jewish  Temple  and  synagogues, 
to  observe  the  Jewish  fasts  and  feasts,  to  take  upon 
themselves  Jewish  vows,  and  to  practise  the  most  dis- 
tinctive Jewish  rites.1  They  did  not  even  call  themselves 
by  .  any  peculiar  name.  They  "  were  called  Christians 
first  in  Antioch ; "  2  and  even  then  did  not  give  them- 
selves the  name,  but  apparently  received  it  from  others. 
Had  any  visitors  in  Jerusalem,  during  the  first  ten  or 
1  Lecture  i.  2  Acts  xi.  26. 


THE  CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  Ill 

twenty  years  after  Jesus'  death  inquired  after  his  disciples, 
they  would  probably  have  been  referred  to  a  group  of 
Jews  living  together  as  one  large  family,  and  distinguished 
from  other  Jews  almost  exclusively  by  their  firm  hope 
of  seeing  Jesus  return  among  them  as  the  promised 
Messiah.  While  they  waited  for  his  coming,  and  with 
that  coming  for  the  overthrow  of  all  existing  kingdoms 
and  churches,  there  was  slight  motive,  certainly,  for  organ- 
izing themselves  into  a  permanent  religious  body. 

The  first  approach  to  separate  organization  was  appar- 
ently in  the  case  of  the  bodies  called  together  in  different 
regions  by  the  preaching  of  Paul,  Barnabas,  and  their 
companions.  Over  these,  teachers  and  elders  (presby- 
ters) seem  to  have  presided,  as  over  Jewish  synagogues ; 
and  the  relation  between  apostle  and  disciple  was  such 
that  Paul  could  address  his  followers  as  members  together 
with  himself,  in  equal  honor,  of  the  one  body  of  Christ.1 
The  tone  in  which  both  Paul  and  Peter  always  address 
their  readers,  as  well  as  the  few  facts  which  appear  from 
the  narratives,  shows  plainly  that  even  they  claim  no 
authority  over  their  congregations,  but  are  simply  their 
freely  appointed  leaders.  "  Not  that  we  have  dominion 
over  your  faith,"  said  Paul  to  the  Corinthians,  "but  are 
helpers  in  your  joy." 2  Such  continued  to  be  the  condi- 
tion of  Christendom  down  to  the  close  of  the  Apostolic 
age.  Churches  there  already  were  at  Antioch,  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  Thessalonica,  and   other   spots,  but   under  no 

1  I  Cor.  xii. 

2  2  Cor.  i.  24;  Comp.  Baur's  Christenthum,  i.  242. 


112  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

single  head,  and  with  no  further  organization  evidently 
than  was  needed  for  the  simplest  church  life.  Their 
only  officers  seem  to  have  been  the  little  band  called 
sometimes  "elders"  {irpeo-fivTepoi) ,  sometimes  "over- 
seers" (cTrto-KOTTot),1  whose  functions  corresponded  prob- 
ably with  those  of  the  elders  of  the  synagogues.  In  later 
days  the  "  overseers  "  became  a  distinct  J^ody  from  the 
"  elders,"  and  in  course  of  time  became  bishops. 

Of  the  ecclesiastical  condition  of  Christendom  in  the 
age  immediately  following  that  of  the  Apostles,  we  know 
of  course  but  little.  We  can  form  some  idea  of  it,  how- 
ever, from  this  passage,  found  in  the  First  Epistle  of 
Clemens  of  Rome  to  the  Corinthians,  written,  if  the 
Epistle  is  genuine,  about  the  end  of  the  first  century,  at 
a  time  evidently  when  the  Corinthians  had  been  setting 
aside  some  church  officers  who  were  distasteful  to  them  : 
"  We  see  how  you  have  put  out  some  who  lived  respect- 
ably among  you,  from  the  ministry,  which  by  their 
innocence  they  had  adorned."  "Now  we  cannot  think 
that  these  may  be  justly  thrown  out  of  their  ministry,  who 
were  either  appointed  by  the  Apostles  or  afterwards  chosen 
by  other  eminent  men,  with  the  consent  of  the  whole 
church."2  "Do  ye,  therefore,  submit  yourselves  unto 
your  elders."8  From  this  passage  it  would  appear  that 
at  the  close  of  the  first  century  there  were  no  bishops  as 

1  Acts  xx.  17,  28  ;  Phil.  i.  1 ;  Tit.  i.  5. 

2  Clemens,  1  Cor.  xix.  18,  21.  Comp.  Lightfoot's  "  Two  Epis. 
of  S.  Clement,"  —  also  Schwegler's  Nachapostolische  Zeitalter, 
ii.  125. 

3  Clemens,  1  Cor.  xxiv.  15. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  113 

distinct  from  elders,  and  that  the  separate  churches  still 
assumed  the  privilege  of  ridding  themselves  of  obnoxious 
leaders,  while  at  the  same  time  the  need  of  a  stricter 
organization  and  of  a  central  authority  was  beginning  to 
be  felt. 

During  the  second  century,  as  we  are  not  surprised  to 
learn,  this  simple  primitive  conception  of  the  Christian 
church  underwent  serious  modifications.  The  perfect 
equality  of  elder  with  elder  and  people  with  clergy,  the 
simple  recognition  of  each  other  as  "members  together" 
of  Christ's  body,  which  had  been  sufficient  apparently  for 
earlier  times,1  could  not  bear  the  strain  of  conflicting  doc- 
trines within  and  threatening  philosophies  without.  The 
leaders  of  the  church  began* to  assume  higher  authority, 
and  the  church  itself  to  be  viewed  with  greater  reverence. 
"Where  the  church  is,"  said  Irenaeus,  before  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  "there  is  the  Spirit  of  God."  "It  is 
only  at  the  breast  of  the  church  that  one  can  be  nursed 
to  life."  "  He  who  separates  himself  from  this  church, 
renounces  the  fellowship  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 2  A  still 
more  significant  word  did  Irenaeus  and  his  contemporaries 
use,  when  they  borrowed  from  Greek  philosophy  the  term 
applied  to  its  schools  or  sects,  and  called  the  doctrines 
of  their  opponents  "heresies."  8  An  established  Christian 
truth  there  was  by  this  time  then,  any  departure  from 
which  could  be  treated  as  error.  Where  did  they  find 
this  truth?  In  the  Christian  Scriptures?  Not  at  all. 
No  one  seems  in  those  days  to  have  sought  it  there. 
1  Neander's  Dogmas,  i.  219.        2  Id.  i.  209.         3  Baur,  i.  233. 


114  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

"  When  heretics  are  refuted  from  Scriptures,  they  accuse 
these  same  Scriptures  and  say  they  are  ambiguous."1 
Irenseus  found  it  in  the  spoken  traditions  of  the  Apostles, 
handed  down  to  their  successors.  "  Suppose  there  arise  a 
dispute,"  he  says,  "relative  to  important  questions  among 
us,  should  we  not  have  recourse  to  the  most  ancient 
churches,  with  which  the  Apostles  had  intercourse,  and 
learn  from  them  what  is  certain  and  clear?"  "It  is 
within  the  power  of  all  to  contemplate  clearly  the  tradi- 
tion of  the  Apostles ;  and  we  are  in  position  to  reckon  up 
those  who  were  by  Apostles  instituted  bishops  in  our 
churches,  and  the  succession  of  these  to  our  times." 
"  Since  it  would  be  tedious  to  reckon  up  the  succession 
of  all  churches,  we  indicate  the  tradition  of  our  great, 
very  ancient,  universally  known  church,  founded  and  or- 
ganized at  Rome  by  those  two  most  glorious  Apostles, 
Peter  and  Paul,  as  also  the  faith  preached  to  men  which 
comes  down  to  us  by  means  of  the  succession  of  bishops 
Linus,  Anacletus,  Clement,  Evaristus,  Alexander,  Sixtus, 
Teleophorus,  Hyginus,  Pius,  Arnictus,  Soter,  Eleutherius. 
There  is  much  abundant  proof  that  one  and  the  same 
faith  has  been  preserved  in  the  church  from  the  Apostles 
till  now  and  handed  down  in  truth."2  "The  Apostles, 
like  rich  men  in  a  bank,  lodged  in  the  hands  of  the 
church  all  things  pertaining  to  truth.  She  is  the  entrance 
to  life."  8  The  church  then  was  taking  form.  It  was  the 
depository  of  truth ;  it  had  a  divine  succession  of  bishops  j 
it  had  a  divine  tradition ;  it  could  speak  of  heresies. 
1  Iren.  Ag.  Her.  ii.  2  Id.  Hi.  8  Id.  iv. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  115 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  this  view  was  al- 
ready universally  accepted.  "  Why  find  fault  with  Chris- 
tian heresies  ? "  said  Origen,  nearly  fifty  years  later. 
"  Heresies  are  found  also  in  medicine  and  philosophy. 
They  arise  through  the  earnest  desire  of  many  literary 
men  to  become  acquainted  with  the  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity." *  Says  Tertullian,  with  delightful  freedom  :  "  You 
say  the  church  has  power  of  forgiving  sins  ?  But  whence 
this  right  ?  From  the  passage,2  '  I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
Keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,'  &c.  ?  But  what  sort  of 
a  man  art  thou,  subverting  the  manifest  intention  of  the 
Lord,  conferring  the  gift  personally  on  Peter  ?  '  On  thee] 
I  will  build  my  church.  '  I  will  give  to  thee  ■  the  keys,  not 
'to  the  church.'  Whatsoever  'thou,  Peter,'  shalt  bind, 
not '  they.'  What  has  this  to  do  with  the  church  !  The 
church,  it  is  true,  will  forgive  sins,  but  it  will  be  the 
church  of  the  Spirit,  by  means  of  a  spiritual  man,  not 
the  church  which  is  made  of  a  number  of  bishops."  8 

The  claims  of  the  Episcopate  found  fullest  assertion,  at 
this  period,  in  the  writings  of  Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage 
from  248  to  258.  "There  is  one  God,"  he  says,  "and 
Christ  is  one,  and  there  is  one  church,  and  one  chair 
founded  upon  a  rock.  Another  altar,  or  new  priesthood, 
cannot  be  made.  If  any  shall  join  a  heretical  faction,  let 
him  know  that  he  cannot  afterwards  return  to  the  church 
and  communicate  with  the  bishops  and  people  of  Christ."4 
"  Lest  they  cut  and  tear  the  one  body  of  the  Catholic 

1  Celsus,  xii.  2  Matt.  xvi.  19. 

8  Tertull.  on  Modesty,  xxi.  4  Cyprian,  Epis.  xxxix. 


Il6  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

church  ...  let  them  acknowledge  and  understand  that 
when  a  bishop  is  once  made  another  can  by  no  means  be 
appointed."1  "Whoever  he  may  be,  and  whatever  he 
may  be,  he  who  is  not  in  the  church  of  Christ  is  not  a 
Christian."2  "We  cannot  be  saved  but  by  the  one  only 
baptism  of  the  one  church."3  Cyprian  seems  to  have 
used  these  words  in  the  most  literal  sense,  and  without 
any  thought  of  the  "invisible  church,"  which  in  later 
times  became  a  favorite  conception.  "  In  his  view,"  says 
Neander,  "  the  church  was  an  outward  organism,  founded 
by  Christ,  of  which  the  bishops  were  the  pillars."  Outside 
the  church  was  no  truth  whatever.  "  It  is  of  no  avail," 
says  Cyprian,  "  what  any  man  teaches ;  it  is  enough  that 
he  teaches  out  of  the  church."  4 

By  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  then,  the  idea  of  the 
Universal  church  began  to  be  familiar.  But  who  are  the 
members  of  that  church,  was  a  question  still  to  be  settled. 
Does  the  outward  rite  of  baptism  alone  constitute  one  a 
member  of  the  body  of  Christ,  or  must  there  be  some  in- 
ward purity  or  personal  worth  as  well  ?  This  was  the  ques- 
tion which  arose  in  the  Donatist  controversy  in  the  fourth 
century.  On  the  occasion  of  the  election  of  a  bishop  in 
Carthage,  in  311,  the  party  of  Donatus  refused  to  recog- 
nize the  new  bishop,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  been 
ordained  by  one  who  was  morally  unworthy  to  perform 
the  functions  of  the  church.  In  other  words,  they  claimed 
that  the  church  of  Christ  demanded  purity  in  its  members 

1  Cyprian,  Epis.  xx.  2  Id.  li.  24. 

8  Id.  lxxxiii.  11.  4  Nean.  Dogmas,  i.  222. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  117 

and  worthiness  in  its  officers ;  that  the  church  consisted, 
"  not  of  a  certain  number  of  baptized  people,  but  of  such 
as  possessed  inward  holiness."1  "Whoever  is  shown  to 
be  a  Christian  in  a  right  and  lawful  manner  is  to  me  a 
Catholic,"  said  the  Donatist. 

This  is  high  ground  certainly,  and  would  seem  emi- 
nently in  keeping  with  the  spiritual  temper  of  Christianity. 
But  to  the  idea  of  an  outward  church,  involving  of  course 
some  indubitable  badge  of  membership,  it  was  found  to 
be  fatal ;  and  the  contest  could  only  result,  as  it  did,  in 
fixing  more  firmly  than  before  the  conception  of  an  or- 
ganized and  divinely  instituted  hierarchy,  the  sanctity  of 
whose  rites  was  independent  of  the  character  of  those 
who  administered  them.  Donatism  was  suppressed  ;  and 
one  earnest  effort  to  spiritualize  the  conception  of  a  Chris- 
tian church  wholly  failed.2  "  No  one  attains  to  salvation 
and  eternal  life,"  said  Augustine  in  opposing  this  schis- 
matic party  a  century  later,  "  who  has  not  Christ  for  his 
head.  But  no  one  can  have  Christ  for  a  head  who  does 
not  belong  to  his  body,  which  is  the  church."3  The  true 
body  of  Christ,  according  to  Augustine,  was  the  great 
Catholic  church  "spread  throughout  the  world."  No 
matter  how  bad  the  character  of  the  officiating  priest 
might  be,  his  official  act,  be  it  baptism  or  other  sacra- 
mental rite,  lost  none  of  its  innate  sanctity.  The  church, 
in  all  its  parts,  was  divine.  Its  authority  was  final,  even  in 
questions  of  revealed  truth.     The  Scriptures  themselves, 

#  1  Nean.  ii.  182-217.  2  Baur.  ii.  220-226. 

3  Nean.  ii.  204.  ►  "!!>>, 


njII7EE3IT7) 


Il8  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

as  we  have  seen,  Augustine  accepted  only  because  the 
church  sanctioned  them.1 

To  close  this  part  of  the  subject,  let  me  quote  once 
more  the  edict  of  Theodosius,  issued  in  380,  to  which  I 
have  before  alluded  in  another  connection :  "  According 
to  the  discipline  of  the  Apostles  and  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel,  let  us  believe  the  sole  Deity  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  under  an  equal  majesty  and  a  pious 
Trinity.  We  authorize  the  followers  of  this  doctrine  to 
assume  the  title  of  Catholic  Christians;  and  as  we  judge 
that  all  others  are  extravagant  madmen,  we  brand  them 
with  the  impious  name  of  heretics ;  and  declare  that  their 
conventicles  shall  no  longer  usurp  the  respectable  appella- 
tion of  churches."2 

Even  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  century,  however,  the 
church  was  far  from  complete.  One  serious  difficulty 
still  remained.  So  long  as  there  were  many  heads  over 
the  church,  whether  bishops,  archbishops,  or  patriarchs, 
there  was  danger,  of  course,  of  divided  councils.  The 
perfect  unity  of  the  church  plainly  demanded  that  one 
should  be  exalted  above  the  rest.  The  logical  necessity 
which  out  of  the  primitive  idea  of  an  outward  authority 
for  Christian  faith  had  already  evolved  an  outward  hier- 
archy, receiving  inspiration  from  the  Apostles  and  so  from 
Christ  himself,  could  not  be  satisfied  until  that  hierarchy 
had  a  single  supreme  head.  The  voice  of  the  Apostolic 
church  must  be  distinct  and  certain.  The  next  historical 
step,  therefore,  was  clear.  Long  before  the  days  of  the 
1  See  Lecture  V.  2  Gibbon,  iii.  395. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  119 

popes  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  one  bishop  should 
rise  above  his  fellows.  As  early  as  the  third  century,  each 
province  had  its  patriarch.  Among  the  patriarchs  one 
must  in  time  become  supreme. 

Not  quite  so  clear  was  it,  however,  to  whom  this  leader- 
ship should  fall.  For  the  first  two  or  three  centuries  the 
East  seemed  the  natural  home  and  centre  of  Chris- 
tendom. If  neither  Jerusalem  nor  Antioch  could  claim 
to  be  the  leading  see,  it  might  perhaps  be  Alexandria  or 
Constantinople.  It  was  only  by  degrees  that  the  Roman 
church  took  highest  rank ;  although  a  certain  precedence 
was  always  granted  it,  because,  of  its  claim  to  unbroken 
lineage  from  the  Apostles  themselves.  In  the  second 
century  Irenaeus  spoke  of  "our  great,  very  ancient, 
and  universal  Roman  church,  founded  and  organized  at 
Rome  by  the  two  most  glorious  Apostles,  Peter  and 
Paul." *  Cyprian,  too,  in  the  next  century,  spoke  of  "  the 
Chair  of  Peter,  the  principal  church  whence  sprang  the 
unity  of  the  priesthood."  2  But  this  was  very  far  from 
conceding  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the  Roman  church, 
or  indeed  granting  it  any  peculiar  authority.  It  was  more 
venerable  than  the  rest,  but  not  over  them.  Cyprian  him- 
self, in  a  dispute  with  the  bishop  of  Rome,  wholly  refused 
to  be  governed  by  his  decision,  and  insisted  that  "  each 
bishop  must  act  independently,  according  to  his  own 
conscience."3  The  Chair  of  Peter,  although  "principal," 
was  by  no  means  supreme.  Indeed  in  the  time  of  Ire- 
naeus, as  we  have  seen,  it  was  not  considered  the  "  Chair 

1  Ag.  Heresies,  iii.    2  Nean.  Hist.  i.  214.    8Nean.  Dogmas,  i.  223. 


120  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

of  Peter/'  but  of  "Peter  and  Paul."  The  church  of 
Rome  had  two  founders.  Origen  was  far  from  Orthodox 
on  the  point  of  Peter's  connection  with  the  church. 
When  Jesus  said,  "Upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my 
church," 1  he  meant  that  the  church  was  founded  on  all 
who  acknowledged  Christ  as  the  Son  of  God.  All  true 
followers  of  Christ,  according  to  Origen,  are  "Peters"; 
that  is,  Rock-men.  The  Kingdom  of  God  consists  of 
such  true  disciples ;  this  is  the  church  against  which  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail.2 

At  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  in  325,  among  318  bishops, 
archbishops,  and  patriarchs,  no  one  was  considered 
supreme,  nor  did  any  receive  other  honor  than  was  due 
to  their  personal  dignity,  their  years,  or  the  political 
importance  of  their  sees.  The  church  of  Rome  was 
represented  only  by  deputies.  Foremost  among  those 
present  was  the  aged  Alexander,  bishop  of  Alexandria, 
the  only  one  in  the  assembly  who  bore  the  official  title  of 
Pope ;  the  term  pope  (papa,  or  father)  being  a  title  of 
Eastern  derivation  applied  at  first  to  all  priests  indiscrim- 
inately, but  afterwards  reserved  for  the  chief  of  the 
Egyptian  church.8  In  325  it  seems  there  was  no  pope  of 
Rome,  but  there  was  a  pope  of  Alexandria. 

The  growing  influence  of  the  church  of  Rome,  owing 
especially  to  political  causes,  was  very  evident  at  the  two 
councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,4  at  which  time  the 
support  of  Leo,  the  bishop  of  Rome,  was  eagerly  sought 

1  Matt.  xvi.  18.  2  Nean.  Dogmas,  i.  224. 

3  Stanley's  East.  Church,  p.  188  and  note.      4  a.d.  449 ;  A.n.  451. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  121 

by  both  parties  to  the  Eutychian  controversy.  In  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  the  main  charge  against  Dioscurus, 
its  leader,  was  that  he  had  suppressed  a  letter  of  Leo 
denouncing  Eutyches.  In  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  a 
letter  from  Leo  was  made  the  basis  of  the  creed  which 
was  finally  adopted ;  and  the  reading  of  the  creed  was 
interrupted  by  such  shouts  as  these  from  the  assembled 
bishops  :  "  This  is  the  faith  of  the  Orthodox  j  thus  do  we 
all  believe ;  thus  does  Pope  Leo  believe  ;  thus  did  Christ 
believe ;  thus  has  the  Pope  expounded." '  It  is  not  to 
be  necessarily  inferred  from  these  shouts,  however,  that 
the  bishop  of  Rome  was  already  recognized  as  pope 
of  the  Christian  church.  The  title  seems  to  have  been 
given  to  Leo  only  by  his  followers ;  as  it  was  not  until  the 
sixth  or  seventh  century  that  it  is  known  to  have  become 
finally  attached  to  the  see  of  Rome.  In  the  Greek 
church  it  was  retained  in  its  primitive  use,  as  belonging 
to  all  members  of  the  priesthood  alike.  At  the  same 
time,  the  entrance  of  Leo  the  Great  into  the  bishopric 
marks  more  definitely  than  any  other  single  event  the  be- 
ginning of  the  supremacy  of  the  Roman  church.  The 
claim  to  the  successorship  of  Peter,  made  by  Roman 
bishops  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  second  century,  and 
favored  more  and  more  by  the  growing  political  power  of 
the  Roman  see,  found  for  the  first  time  in  Leo  a  worthy 
representative,  who  not  only  understood  the  idea  of  the 
Catholic  church,  but  was  determined  to  win  for  it  prac- 
tical recognition.  The  influence  of  his  mere  name  at 
1  Evag.  p.  328. 


122  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

the  Council  of  Chalcedon  we  have  already  seen.  The 
importance  which  later  tradition  assigned  to  his  career 
can  be  best  understood  from  Raphael's  well-known  fresco 
of  "Attila,"  in  the  "Stanza  of  the  Heliodorus "  in  the 
Vatican.  The  picture  is  based  on  the  following  myth : 
When  Attila  crossed  the  Alps,  in  452,  and  held  Rome  at 
his  mercy,  he  was  turned  aside  by  the  appearance  of  Leo, 
in  his  pontifical  robes,  who  came  forth  to  meet  him,  and 
over  whose  head  appeared  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  pro- 
tecting their  successor  with  a  brandished  sword. 

Leo,  as  I  have  said,  was  not  pope  in  the  later  sense  of 
that  word.  He  himself  begins  his  letter  to  Flavian,  on 
being  summoned  to  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  simply,  u  Leo 
episcopus."1  Indeed  it  is  not  easy  to  determine  who 
first  bore  the  title  of  pope,  as  acknowledged  head  of 
the  Catholic  church.  The  claim  to  primacy,  which  de- 
veloped itself  gradually  in  the  minds  of  the  Roman 
bishops,  came  quite  as  gradually  to  outward  realization. 
The  feeling  which  prevailed  early  in  the  fifth  century  can 
be  inferred  from  Can.  1 7  of  the  General  African  Synod  at 
Carthage,2  which  refers  to  the  attempt  of  the  Roman 
bishop  to  interfere  in  the  proceedings  of  the  African 
church,  regarding  the  Pelagian  controversy :  "  Whoever 
appeals  to  a  tribunal  beyond  the  sea  shall  no  longer  be 
received  into  ecclesiastical  communion  by  any  one  in 
Africa."  8  Later  in  the  same  century  the  supremacy  of 
Rome  over  the  Western  church,  so  far  as   an  emperor 

1  Hefele's  Conciliengeschichte,  ii.  353,  n.  2  A.  D.  418. 

8  Hefele,  ii.  119. 


THE  CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  1 23 

could  bestow  it,  was  decreed  by  an  edict  of  Valentinian 
III.,1  declaring  "  the  Romish  bishop  supreme  head  of  the 
whole  Western  church  j  " 2  a  decision  which  led  the  Ori- 
ental bishops  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  declare  the 
bishop  of  Constantinople  on  an  equality  with  the  bishop 
of  Rome.  Before  the  end  of  the  fifth  century,  the  term 
papa  appears  as  applied  to  the  Roman  bishop  Simplicius,8 
as  it  had  been  to  Leo  before,  though  the  term  was  not  yet 
in  vogue,  and  though  the  Roman  bishops  demanded  at 
that  time  only  the  honor  belonging  to  all  Apostolic  sees.4 
According  to  a  generally  received  belief,  Boniface  III., 
either  in  his  own  name  or  when  nuncio  of  Gregory  the 
Great,  obtained  a  decree  from  the  Emperor  Phocas,5 
transferring  the  title  of  "  universal  bishop  "  from  the  patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  who  had  claimed  it,  to  the  bishop 
of  Rome ; 6  but  the  story  rests  on  doubtful  authority,  and 
marks  at  best  only  a  temporary  surrender  of  the  title  by 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Nor  did  Gregory  him- 
self assume,  in  regard  to  other  patriarchs,  any  tone  of 
authority.  Indeed,  when  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria 
addressed  him  by  this  very  title,  papa  universalis,  Gregory 
disclaimed  it,  as  a  disparagement  to  his  brethren  in  rank, 
and  as  fostering  vanity.  When  the  same  patriarch  used 
the  expression  "as  you  commanded,"  Gregory  replied, 
"  I  know  who  I  am  and  who  you  are,  —  in  dignity  and 

1  A.  D.  445.  2  Gieseler's  Church  History,  i.  395. 

8  "  Beatissimi  papae  nostri  Simplicii." 
4  Gieseler,  i.  499.  5  A.  d.  606. 

6  "  Ut  sedes  apostolica  beati  Pet.  apos.  caput  esset  omnium  ec- 
clesiarum." 


124  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

rank  you  are  my  brother,  in  piety  my  father.  I  did  not 
command  you,  I  only  endeavored  to  point  out  what 
seemed  to  me  expedient."1  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
declare  that  St.  Peter  himself  never  claimed  to  be  a 
"  universal  apostle  \  "  and  asserts  that  the  Apostolic  see, 
though  "the  see  of  one  only,  is  in  three  places,"  An- 
tioch,  Rome,  and  Alexandria.  In  his  language  to  the 
Emperor  Maurice,  too,  against  whose  decree  concerning 
monasteries  he  violently  protested,  while  feeling  obliged 
to  promulgate  it,  he  shows  how  far  the  bishop  of  Rome 
was,  in  the  seventh  century,  whatever  his  authority  among 
other  bishops,  from  claiming  any  superiority  to  the  impe- 
rial power.  "What  am  I,"  said  Gregory  the  Great,  "  but 
dust  and  a  worm,  to  speak  thus  to  my  Lord  ?  "  2 

The  pontificate  of  Gregory  L,  therefore,  if  such  it  can 
be  called,  showed  both  the  slight  pretensions  of  the 
papacy  up  to  that  time,  and  the  steps  it  was  then  taking 
for  larger  authority.  When  Gregory  assumed  the  episco- 
pate, the  Roman  see  was  simply  a  metropolitan  diocese, 
disputing  precedence  with  three  Eastern  bishoprics,  sub- 
ject to  the  will  of  the  Emperor,  its  supremacy  not  fully 
acknowledged  even  in  France,  England,  Lower  Italy,  or 
Africa.  By  his  organizing  skill,  and  his  genius  as  ad- 
ministrator, he  gave  the  Western  church  a  consciousness 
of  unity  which  it  had  never  felt  before,  and  made  the 

1  Quoted  by  Neander,  Hist.  iii.  115.  See  also  Gregory's  Epis- 
tles, viii.  30;  Gieseler»  i.  505,  n. ;  Lau's  Gregor  I.  pp.  149-166; 
Hallam's  Middle  Ages,  ch.  vii. 

2  Comp.  Lau's  Gregor  I.  p.  107  ;  Ersch  and  Gruber,  art.  Greg.  I. ; 
Barmby's  Gregory  the  Great,  pp.  80,  99. 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  1 25 

primacy  of  Rome  in  the  West  a  necessity;  while  by 
making  his  influence  felt  throughout  Italy  in  meeting  the 
Lombard  invasion,  he  taught  the  people  to  look  to  the 
Roman  bishop  as  their  natural  protector,  and  so  prepared 
the  way  for  the  political  independence  of  the  church. 

The  further  stages  in  the  growth  of  the  papacy  can  be 
but  briefly  alluded  to. 

In  1054  came  the,  excommunication  by  the  pope  of 
the  patriarch  of  Constantinople ;  *  from  which  time  the 
Eastern  Church,  once  identical  with  Christendom,  be- 
came, as  the  Greek  Church,  a  schismatic  body ;  while  its 
Western  rival,  having  numbers  and  political  power  on  its 
side,  made  good  its  claim  as  the  head  of  Catholic  Chris- 
tianity. 

The  pontificate  of  Hildebrand  (1073-85)  was  marked 
by  the  dramatic  and  significant  spectacle  of  an  emperor 
appearing  as  a  suppliant  at  the  gates  of  the  pope,  and 
waiting  three  winter  days  barefoot,  before  the  haughty 
ecclesiastic  would  even  receive  his  submission.  From  the 
time  of  Hildebrand  the  emancipation  of  the  papacy  from 
its  vassalage  to  the  empire  was  complete. 

It  would  be  useless  in  a  discourse  like  this  to  attempt 
to  trace  in  further  detail  the  several  steps  by  which  the 
Catholic  church  advanced  towards  its  present  perfect  de- 
velopment. Its  doctrinal  completion  is  wont  to  be  found 
in  the  decrees  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  which  was  called 
in  1545-6,  in  response  to  the  great  Protestant  movement 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  which  enunciated  formally 
1Nean.  iii.  585. 


126  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

and  finally  the  dogmas  of  Catholicism.  If  any  single 
moment  is  to  be  pointed  out,  however,  when  the  Catholic 
church  reached  the  fulness  of  its  growth  and  realized  its 
perfect  ideal,  it  would  certainly  be  that  moment  in  the 
year  1870  when  the  General  Council  of  the  Vatican 
pronounced  the  pope  of  Rome  the  infallible  head  of  the 
church.  In  this  act,  however  illogical  it  may  appear  to 
the  carnal  mind  for  a  pontiff  to  assume  higher  authority 
than  the  council  which  gave  him  his  power,  the  structure 
became  complete ;  without  it,  it  would  have  remained 
forever  unfinished.  When  the  infallible  word,  intrusted 
to  the  hands  of  a  divine  hierarchy,  is  finally  interpreted 
by  one  infallible  mind,  then  and  only  then,  perfect  se- 
curity against  divided  councils  is  gained,  and  the  last  step 
is  taken  in  the  progress  of  ecclesiastical  Christianity. 

And  now,  with  this  account  of  the  Catholic  church 
before  us,  the  place  which  the  subject  takes  in  our  present 
inquiries  becomes  sufficiently  plain.  The  church  came 
into  being,  as  we  have  seen,  in  answer  to  the  demand  for 
a  fixed  and  authoritative  standard  of  doctrinal  faith.  If 
such  a  standard  is  essential  to  religious  faith,  such  an 
institution  as  this  must  certainly  exist  to  supply  it.  If  we 
once  grant  this  necessity,  then  we  must  acknowledge  that 
the  successive  steps  which  the  church  took  in  its  gradual 
development  were  natural  and  inevitable,  and  that  the 
ideal  of  doctrinal  unity  and  ecclesiastical  authority  could 
hardly  be  more  legitimately  or  perfectly  realized  than  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  church  of  to-day.  Every  claim  it 
has  made,  however  arrogant,  each  position  it  has  taken, 


THE   CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  127 

however  unscrupulous,  from  the  hour  when  each  com- 
munity made  and  unmade  its  bishops  at  will,  to  the 
moment  when  Pius  IX.  became  the  infallible  head  of  an 
omnipotent  hierarchy,  has  been  simply  an  onward  step 
toward  the  perfect  vindication  of  its  title  to  spiritual 
authority.  However  hostile  to  abstract  justice  or  right 
many  of  these  proceedings  may  have  been,  or  however 
inconsistent  with  previous  declarations  of  the  church  it- 
self, it  would  be  difficult  to  show  that  the  church  could 
have  remained  a  church  on  any  other  terms.  To  accept 
the  vote  of  a  noisy  council  of  angry  bishops,  acting  under 
imperial  dictation,  as  deciding  the  most  solemn  doctrines 
of  Christian  faith,  to  declare  the  administration  of  religious 
rites  to  be  as  holy  if  the  priest  be  wicked  as  if  he  be  vir- 
tuous, to  bestow  upon  a  human  being  the  divine  attribute 
of  spiritual  infallibility,  although  in  the  simple  light  of 
reason  preposterous,  yet  one  and  all,  as  steps  towards 
insuring  uniformity  of  faith,  have  the  argument  wholly 
on  their  side.  They  are  the  very  means  whereby  the 
Catholic  church  has  so  brilliantly  redeemed  its  promises, 
and  so  triumphantly  achieved  for  Christendom  a  perfect 
Orthodoxy.  If  the  Christian  world  asks  for  outward 
authority,  it  is  difficult  to  see  what  better  it  can  demand 
than  is  here  offered  it.  Tracing  back  its  descent  to  Apos- 
tolic times,  pointing  to  an  unbroken  career  of  eighteen 
centuries,  and  to  a  unity  disturbed  only  by  a  slight 
departure  from  the  faith  in  the  fifth  century,  the  schism  of 
the  Greek  church  in  the  eleventh  century,  and  the  Prot- 
estant schism  in  the  sixteenth,  the  Catholic  church,  as  an 


128  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

ecclesiastical  institution,  has  claims  upon  the  recognition 
of  Christendom  which  could  not  well  be  surpassed. 

And  of  such  churches  there  can  be  but  one.  If  two 
are  possible,  if  Christendom  can  have  two  ecclesiastical 
systems,  then  neither  is  supreme.  Then  doctrinal  author- 
ity ceases.  Two  sources  of  authority  are  as  impossible 
as  twenty.  If  there  is  to  be  any  outward  authority  in 
Christianity,  it  must  be  single.  Christendom  cannot  have 
two  churches;  it  can  have  but  one,  and  that  the  one 
which  can  claim  years  and  numbers  on  its  side.  If  a 
church  is  necessary  to  Christianity,  then  the  Roman 
church  holds  that  place  unchallenged. 

Still  another  point  is  equally  clear.  If  there  is  no  room 
in  Christendom  for  two  churches,  no  more  is  there  room 
for  two  authorized  faiths.  Doctrine  is  simply,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  utterance  of  the  church  in  matters  of  religious 
belief.  Doctrines  are  church  decisions.  If  there  can  be 
but  one  Christian  church,  so  there  can  be  but  one  Chris- 
tian Orthodoxy.  To  suppose  two,  is  to  suppose  none. 
The  creed  of  the  Roman  church  must  remain  the  Ortho- 
doxy of  Christendom  until  there  is  another  church  to 
contest  the  place  of  the  church  of  the  Papacy. 

I  trust  that  you  understand  my  exact  position  here.  I 
do  not  say  that  the  church  of  Rome  is  the  legitimate  out- 
come of  Christianity ;  I  say  it  is  the  legitimate  outcome  of 
doctrinal  Christianity.  I  do  not  say  it  holds  the  only  true 
faith ;  I  say  it  holds  the  only  faith  for  those  who  ask  for  a 
verbal  creed.  I  do  not  say  it  has  rightful  authority  over 
the  soul ;  I  say  that  over  those  who  seek  outward  author- 


THE  CATHOLIC   CHURCH.  1 29 

ity,  the  Catholic  church  should  be  supreme.  I  do  not 
say  its  logical  position  is  invulnerable ;  I  say  its  position 
is  invulnerable  if  its  premises  are  granted. 

For  one,  I  do  not  accept  its  premises.  In  my  view,  a 
religion  is  possible  without  outward  authority,  and  without 
uniformity  of  faith.  In  my  view,  no  true  religion  is  possi- 
ble with  outward  authority,  or  the  acceptance  of  dogmas. 
As  I  view  Christianity,  Christianity  was  possible  without 
ecclesiasticism,  without  a  hierarchy,  without  a  creed.  As 
I  view  Christianity,  the  divine  life  to  which  it  summoned 
the  soul  was  not  subscription  to  a  verbal  belief,  but  the 
pursuit  of  a  truth  which  is  infinite ;  not  the  solution  of 
metaphysical  subtleties,  but  the  unfolding  of  spiritual  as- 
pirations. As  I  view  Christian  truth,  the  church  which  lay 
ideally  in  the  great  Founder's  heart,  was  not  a  realm  of 
authority  where  dominion  is  to  be  exercised  over  faith  ;  it 
was  the  fellowship  of  souls  in  the  pursuit  of  holiness  and 
excellence,  and  the  leadership  of  every  pure  and  noble 
spirit  which,  with  priestly  robes  or  without,  can  help  others 
to  a  nearer  approach  to  heaven.  As  I  view  our  religion, 
the  moment  the  first  priest  was  invested  with  authority 
over  another's  faith,  the  purity  of  Christianity  was  lost,  and 
it  could  only  fall  further  and  further  from  its  abandoned 
ideal.  As  I  read  the  Gospels,  every  confession  of  a  writ- 
ten dogma  is  treason  to  their  religious  simplicity ;  and  as 
I  read  the  life  of  Jesus,  every  such  act  is  open  infidelity  to 
the  spirituality  of  his  thought.  If  Christendom  as  a  whole 
stood  upon  this  ground,  all  would  be  clear ;  but  unfortu- 
nately it  has  chosen  to  demand  a  uniform  belief,  and  must 
9 


130  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

therefore  accept  the  consequences.  In  one  religion  there 
cannot  be  two  churches,  two  hierarchies,  two  orthodox- 
ies, —  there  can  be  but  one. 

I  beg  you  to  keep  this  point  in  view,  for  it  is  the  central 
position  of  this  course  of  lectures ;  it  seems  to  me  the 
central  point  of  doctrinal  Christianity.  We  have  discov- 
ered Christian  Orthodoxy.  It  is  the  creed  of  the  Catholic 
church.  Exactly  that.  If  Christendom  takes  any  further 
step,  it  must  be  in  the  career  of  heresy. 

March  I,  1874. 


VII. 

THE  LUTHERAN   HERESY. 

THE  Catholic  church,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  nat- 
ural and  necessary  result  of  the  demand,  on  the 
part  of  the  Christian  world,  for  a  doctrinal  faith.  Al- 
though not  hinted  at  in  the  Gospels  themselves,  although 
the  gradual  growth  of  many  centuries,  the  church  yet  lay 
distinctly  prefigured  in  the  first  effort  to  establish  an  out- 
ward uniformity  of  Christian  belief;  and  the  successive 
features  which,  from  generation  to  generation,  it  assumed, 
were  but  the  legitimate  steps  towards  the  fulfilment  of  this 
purpose.  Yet  its  progress  was  never  undisputed.  Here- 
sies lurked  within  its  borders  and  threatened  its  peace, 
from  the  beginning,  and  were  cast  out  only  by  the  exercise 
of  that  supreme  authority  in  matters  of  faith  which  the 
church  claimed  to  have  received  from  Christ,  and  which 
even  heretics  rarely  questioned. 

At  last  the  time  came,  however,  when  this  authority  was 
itself  challenged.  The  increasing  pretensions  of  the  pa- 
pacy, together  with  the  growing  corruption  of  the  priest- 
hood, excited  a  deep  distrust  of  the  church,  which  in  the 
sixteenth  century  ripened  into  a  formidable  revolt.     It  is 


I 


132  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  story  of  this  revolt,  called  the  Protestant  Reformation, 
that  we  are  to  follow  to-night. 

First,  however,  let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  the  lesse^ 
movements  of  the  same  kind  which  preceded  the  Refor- 
mation. Long  before  the  sixteenth  century  the  claims  of 
the  church  had  been  called  in  question ;  not  seriously 
enough  to  lead  to  an  open  rupture,  yet  enough  to  show 
that  men's  thoughts  were  turning  in  that  direction.  Nearly 
two  centuries  before  the  Protestant  Reformation,  at  a  time 
when  England  had  become  greatly  agitated  over  the  ques- 
tion of  paying  tribute  to  the  pope,  an  English  priest,  John 
Wycliffe  (born  1324),  not  only  stoutly  opposed  the  papal 
claim,  but  went  so  far  as  to  style  the  pope  "  Antichrist ;  " 
"  the  proud,  worldly  Priest  of  Rome,  the  most  cursed  of 
Clippers  and  Purse-Kervers."  Several  bulls  were  issued 
against  him,  commanding  inquiry  into  his  erroneous  doc- 
trines, but  the  only  result  was  fresh  denunciations  from 
Wycliffe  of  monasticism,  confession,  indulgences,  worship 
of  saints  and  images,  and  a  denial  of  purgatory  and  the 
real-presence.  Worse  than  this,  Wycliffe  turned  his  fine 
learning  to  account  in  translating  the  Scriptures  for  the 
first  time  into  the  popular  tongue,  and  circulating  them 
among  the  common  people ;  thus  helping  to  throw  upon 
the  pretensions  of  the  papacy  that  one  light  which  the 
papacy  can  never  bear.  Wycliffe 's  influence  was  chiefly 
felt,  however,  among  scholars  and  men  of  letters,  and  his 
movement  never  reached  popular  dimensions.  His  doc- 
trines were  condemned  by  the  pope  in  1377,  and  at  the 
so-called  Earthquake  Council  in  London,  in  1382,  but  he 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 33 

himself  was  allowed  to  continue  in  the  discharge  of  parish 
duties,  and  died  in  1384.1 

Wycliflfe's  influence,  however,  did  not  cease  with  his  J 
death,  nor  was  it  confined  to  his  own  land.  Early  in  the 
next  century,  John  Huss,2  a  preacher  in  Prague,  stirred  by 
WyclinVs  writings,  began  to  preach  against  the  worldli- 
ness  of  the  clergy  and  the  abuses  of  the  papacy,  claimed 
rights  for  the  congregation  as  well  as  the  priests,  insisted 
upon  administering  the  cup  at  the  sacrament,  and  denied 
that  any  visible  head  was  needful  to  the  church.  Antici- 
pating the  heresy  of  a  later  day,  when  the  pope  offered 
indulgences  for  sale  to  pay  the  expenses  of  a  crusade, 
Huss  openly  preached  against  them,  and  burned  the 
pope's  bull  at  the  public  pillory.  These  open  acts  of  re- 
bellion were  dealt  with  in  a  summary  way.  At  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constance,  in  141 5,  Huss  was  declared  "obstinately 
guilty  of  heresy,"  was  "  degraded  from  his  priesthood, 
and  handed  over  to  the  secular  power."  "  He  was  now 
clothed  in  sacerdotal  vestments,"  says  the  Catholic  his- 
torian, St.  Liguori,3  "  which  were  immediately  afterwards 
stripped  off  him,  and  a  paper  cap  was  put  on  his  head, 
inscribed,  '  Behold  the  heresiarch.'  He  was  now  tied  to 
the  stake,  and  as  the  executioner  applied  the  torch,  the 
hypocrite  was  heard  to  exclaim,  '  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  the 
living  God,  have  mercy  on  me;'  words  inspired  by  the 
vainglorious  desire  of  being  considered  to  have  died  a 

1  Hase,  p.  346.  2  Born  in  1373. 

3  Liguori's  Hist,  of  Heresies,  p.  254;  Seebohm's  Era  of  Prot. 
Revolution,  p.  14. 


134  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

martyr's  death;  but  we  should  not  forget  that  the  devil 
has  martyrs,  and  infuses  into  them  a  false  constancy. 
His  ashes  were  cast  into  the  lake,  and  thus  the  scene 
closed  upon  John  Huss."1  His  confederate,  the  schol- 
arly and  chivalric  Jerome  of  Prague,  met  the  same  fate 
the  following  year. 

By  its  dealings  with  these  two  offenders  the  church 
showed  by  what  means  its  authority  was  to  be  enforced. 
If  the  means  seem  cruel,  we  must  remember  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  church.  If  uniformity  of  belief  is  to  be  se- 
cured, it  can  only  be,  in  any  age,  by  the  violent  suppression 
of  every  heresy.  The  fifteenth  century  was  more  consist- 
ent than  the  nineteenth. 

A  reformer  of  quite  another  stamp  appeared  still  later  in 
the  same  century  in  Florence,  and  was  the  instigator  of 
one  of  the  most  picturesque  as  well  as  impassioned  relig- 
ious revolutions  which  Christendom  has  known.  In  the 
midst  of  the  classic  revival  in  Italy,  when  Florence  was  at 
the  height  of  her  luxury  and  splendor,  and  the  Medici 
had  gathered  about  them  the  brilliant  company  of  artists 
that  graced  the  close  of  the  fifteenth  century,  a  Dominican 
monk,  Jerome  Savonarola,  began  a  crusade  against  the 
religious  abuses  and  social  corruptions  which  were  tainting 
both  church  and  people.  The  effect  of  his  fierce  Italian 
eloquence  is  described  as  unparalleled.  The  courtly  city 
was  struck  dumb  with  shame,  and  paralyzed  with  fear. 
"Women  rose  up  suddenly,"  we  are  told,  "laid  aside 
their  splendid  garments,  and  appeared  again  in  modest 
1  See  also  Hase,  347  -  349. 


THE   LUTHERAN  HERESY.  1 35 

attire ;  enemies  became  reconciled ;  illegal  gains  were 
voluntarily  given  back.  It  even  happened  that  a  young 
and  happy  married  pair  separated  and  went  both  into  the 
cloister."  1 

At  the  carnival  of  1496  a  pyramid  sixty  feet  high  was 
erected  on  the  piazza,  formed  of  harps,  lutes,  playing-cards, 
dice  and  gaming-tables,  chess-boards  of  artistic  form, 
women's  head-dresses,  false  hair  and  costly  shawls,  rouge- 
pots,  essences,  and  books  with  love-songs,  to  which  the 
crowd  set  fire,  dancing  around  it  while  it  burned.2  Even 
artists  were  seized  by  the  strange  frenzy.  Fra  Bartolomeo 
threw  his  choicest  paintings  upon  the  burning  pile,  and 
went  into  a  convent.3  Lorenzo  de  Credi  cast  in  his  draw- 
ings and  paintings  from  the  nude.  Sandro  Botticelli  was 
affected  by  religious  melancholy,  if  the  accounts  be  true, 
and  abandoned  his  art.4  According  to  one  theory  Peru- 
gino,  who  just  at  this  time  lost  the  fine  inspiration  of  his 
earlier  art,  and  sunk  into  a  lifeless  mannerism,  and  died  a 
sceptic,  felt  this  cold  blight  upon  his  genius  and  his  faith 
when  his  great  religious  leader  perished  at  the  stake.5 
Even  Michael  Angelo  has  been  counted  among  Savona- 
rola's adherents.6  For  a  few  years  the  power  of  Savonarola 
in  Florence,  both  civil  and  religious,  seemed  boundless ; 

1  Grimm's  Life  of  M.  Angelo,  i.  118. 

2  Vasari's  Life  of  Fra  Bartolomeo ;  Trollope's  Commonwealth 
of  Florence,  iv.  131 ;  Grimm,  i.  156. 

3  Grimm,  i.  357. 

4  Pater's  Studies  of  the  Renaissance,  p.  40. 

5  Taine's  Italy ;  Lecky's  Rationalism  in  Europe,  i.  260. 

6  Grimm,  i.  157. 


136  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

when  suddenly,  as  some  of  his  political  predictions  failed 
of  fulfilment,  the  fickle  populace,  joining  hands  with  the 
rulers  of  the  city  against  their  idol,  brought  him  to  the 
stake.  He  was  burned,  in  1498,  in  front  of  the  Govern- 
ment palace.  The  church  has  never  ranked  this  impet- 
uous preacher  among  its  heretics.  Raphael  introduced 
him  into  the  Vatican  among  the  doctors  of  the  church, 
in  his  fresco  of  the  Dispute  of  the  Sacrament.  His  por- 
trait, painted  by  Bartolomeo,  encircled  with  the  halo 
of  sanctity,  was  offered  for  sale  even  in  the  streets  of 
Rome,1  and  hangs  in  the  gallery  of  St.  Mark  to  the 
present  day. 

Such  were  some  of  the  precursors  of  the  reformers  of 
the  sixteenth  century.  The  fact  that  Huss  and  Savona- 
rola were  silenced  only  made  it  the  more  imperative  that 
some  one  should  speak.  The  power  which  the  Roman 
church  places  in  the  hands  of  its  higher  clergy  cannot  be 
safely  borne  unless  those  who  hold  it  are  something  more 
than  human.  That  the  popes  and  bishops  of  the  fifteenth 
century  were  not  more  than  human,  is  best  shown,  per- 
haps, by  the  following  passages  from  Catholic  writers. 

"The  scenes  of  disorder,"  writes  the  Abbe"  Darras, 
"had  necessarily  produced  a  deplorable  relaxation  in  the 
morals  of  the  clergy.  Intrigue,  simony,  corruption,  and 
venality  were  rending  the  bosom  of  the  church.  The 
private  life  of  the  clergy  presented  a  sad  spectacle ;  the 
spirit  of  the  world,  sensuality,  and  avarice  reigned  supreme 
in  their  hearts.  Relaxation  of  discipline  had  reached  such 
1  Grimm,  i.  220. 


THE   LUTHERAN    HERESY.  1 37 

a  pitch  that  some  doctors  did  not  blush  to  maintain  that 
marriage  should  be  made  lawful  for  the  clergy;  they 
thought  they  could  best  meet  the  scandal  by  making  it 
legitimate."1  Dollinger,  who  at  the  time  of  writing  his 
history  of  the  church  was  a  good  Catholic  in  high  repute, 
gives  the  following  account  of  the  four  popes  who  immedi- 
ately preceded  Leo  X.;  whose  pontificates  therefore  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  Reformation.  "  After  the  death  of 
Paul  II.,  in  14  7 1,  began  days  of  woe  and  scandal  for  the 
see  of  Rome.  Men  were  now  raised  to  the  highest  eccle- 
siastical dignities  whom  the  primitive  church  would  not 
have  admitted  to  the  lowest  ranks  of  the  clergy."  2  "  Six- 
tus  IV.  raised  at  once  two  of  his  nephews  to  the  rank  of 
cardinals.  One  was  loaded  with  benefices,  bishoprics,  and 
abbeys  in  Italy,  France,  and  Spain ;•  was  governor  of 
several  provinces,  legatee  of  all  Italy,  and  surrounded 
himself  with  a  court  of  five  hundred  persons.  The  other 
was  created  cardinal  at  seventeen,  and  had  sixteen  bishops 
in  his  suite.  For  still  another,  a  principality  in  Romagna 
was  designed."3  Innocent  VIII.,  "who  gained  the  vote 
of  the  cardinals  by  promises  of  legations  and  rich  bene- 
fices," and  was  well  known  to  have  a  large  family  of  sons 
and  daughters,  enriched  himself  as  follows :  "  To  fill  the 
papal  treasury,  fifty-two  officers  were  appointed  for  expe- 
diting bulls,  each  paying  twenty-five  hundred  ducats  for 
the  office." 4     Of  Alexander  VI.,  the  next  pope,  father  of 

1  Darras's  Hist,  of  Church,  i.  644. 

2  Dollinger's  Hist,  of  Church,  iv.  219. 

3  Id.  iv.  220.  4  Id.  iv.  225. 


138  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  notorious  Caesar  and  Lucretia  Borgia,  he  says  :  "  That 
which  might  well  seem  incredible  now  came  to  pass.  A 
man  of  whose  immoral  and  vicious  life  no  one  could  have 
been  ignorant,  was  raised  to  the  highest  dignity  of  the 
church,  only  because  he  had  by  boundless  avarice  col- 
lected sufficient  money  to  purchase  the  votes  of  fifteen 
out  of  the  twenty  cardinals." 1  Of  the  next  pope  he  says, 
"The  warlike  and  conquest-seeking  Julius  II.  directed 
his  efforts  to  restoring  the  strength  of  the  church," 2  and  so 
had  little  time  for  purging  it  of  its  corruptions.  Finally, 
of  Leo  X.,  himself,  Dollinger  writes  :  "  Least  of  all  could 
a  pontiff  like  the  splendor-loving  and  magnificent  Leo 
interrupt  the  promiscuous  and  odious  traffic  of  the  tri- 
bunal." "  Bishops  contended  with  cardinals  for  exorbi- 
tant privileges."  3 

Let  me  add  to  these  a  few  words  in  relation  to  the 
same  period  from  the  historian  Ranke  :  "  The  only  con- 
cern of  the  Roman  Curia  was  to  engross  to  itself  the 
greatest  possible  number  of  vacancies  and  appointments."  4 
"  The  ordinances  of  the  Roman  Catholic  church  and  texts 
from  Scripture  were  spoken  of  with  a  sneer ;  the  mysteries 
of  faith  were  treated  with  contempt."  "  One  no  longer 
passes  for  an  accomplished  person  in  Rome,"  were  the 
words  of  a  visitor  of  those  days,  "  who  does  not  entertain 
wrong  views  of  Christianity."  5 

Such  was  the  state  of  things  in  Rome,  when  in  the 

1  Dollinger's  Hist,  of  Church,  iv.  225. 

2  Id.  iv.  229.  8  Id.  iv.  237. 
4  Ranke's  Hist,  of  Papacy,  i.  52.  5  Id.  i.  64. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 39 

year  15 10  an  Augustinian  pilgrim  from  Prussian  Saxony 
wandered  through  the  streets  of  the  eternal  city.  Had  he 
been  a  lover  of  art,  his  thoughts  would  perhaps  have 
turned  to  other  things  than  those  which  vexed  his  passion- 
ate soul,  and  he  might  have  judged  the  scenes  around  him 
in  a  different  spirit ;  for  in  the  splendid  palace  of  Julius 
II.,  Michael  Angelo  was  sketching  on  the  ceiling  of  the 
Sistine  chapel  prophets  and  sibyls  of  almost  superhuman 
majesty ;  while  in  neighboring  halls,  Raphael,  born  the 
same  year  with  our  German  monk,  was  illustrating  in  a 
vast  series  of  triumphant  designs  the  expulsion  of  the 
royal  French  invader  from  the  sacred  soil  of  Italy,  the 
miraculous  victory  of  the  papacy  over  its  sacrilegious 
foes,  the  eternal  supremacy  of  the  church  over  the  pagan 
world.  Little  heed,  however,  did  the  young  friar  pay  to 
vanities  like  these.  Still  less  to  the  marble  gods  and  god- 
desses which  a  new-born  classic  zeal  was  daily  bringing  to 
the  light  of  day  from  beneath  the  soil  of  Rome.  What  lay 
upon  his  troubled  heart  was  the  condition  of  the  clergy  of 
his  church.  How  they  talked  of  sacred  things !  bought 
and  sold  the  offices  of  Christ !  smiled  at  the  mass,  and 
hurried  from  the  confessional  to  their  beastly  debauch- 
eries !  Little  will  it  take,  when  he  returns  to  his  chair  at 
Wittenberg,  to  fan  the  coals  of  his  indignation  to  a  con- 
suming flame.  This  German  pilgrim  was  Martin  Luther, 
then  twenty-seven  years  old,  already  a  preacher  of  repute 
and  lecturer  upon  the  Holy  Scriptures  at  the  Saxon  Uni- 
versity at  Wittenberg,  of  whom,  before  he  went  to  Rome, 
a  rector  of  his  university  had  ventured   the  prediction : 


140  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

"  This  monk  will  put  all  doctors  to  the  rout ;  he  builds 
upon  the  word  of  Christ."  x 

The  needed  provocation  came  within  a  few  years  after 
his  return  from  Rome.  Leo  X.,  who  had  succeeded 
Julius  II.,  and  needed  funds  to  carry  out  his  predecessor's 
gigantic  plans  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Basilica  of 
St.  Peter,  proposed  to  obtain  them,  as  other  popes  had 
done  before  him,  by  the  offer  of  indulgences  through  all 
Catholic  lands.  The  granting  of  indulgences,  based  on 
the  power  of  the  church  to  remit  sins,  long  claimed  by  the 
popes,  and  recently,  under  Alexander  VI.,  extended  to  the 
rescue  of  souls  out  of  purgatory,2  rested  upon  the  idea  that 
the  merits  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  were  so  far  in  excess  of 
the  needs  of  the  human  race,  that  the  superabundance 
might  be  turned  to  account,  at  the  discretion  of  popes 
and  bishops,  for  the  remission  of  the  temporal  punishment 
of  sins.  "  The  treasure  of  indulgences,"  says  the  Abbe 
Darras,  "  which  can  be  dispensed  only  by  popes  and 
bishops,  is  supplied  from  the  superabundant  satisfaction  of 
Jesus  Christ ;  a  single  drop  of  the  blood  of  the  God-man 
would  have  been  a  thousand  times  sufficient  to  redeem 
thousands  of  worlds.  To  these  exhaustless  springs  of 
merit  are  added  the  abounding  merits  of  Mary,  who  never 
had  a  fault  to  expiate,  with  those  of  numberless  saints 
who  have  suffered  for  justice's  sake,  and  practised  long- 
continued  penance  to  atone  for  slight  imperfections."8 
« 

1  D'Aubigne's  Hist,  of  Reform,  of  Sixteenth  Cent.  i.  160. 

2  Ranke,  i.  54. 

8  Darras's  Hist,  of  Church,  ii.  46. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  141 

With  this  exhaustless  fountain  to  draw  from,  and  so  holy 
an  enterprise  to  further  as  the  building  of  St.  Peter's,  it 
would  be  strange  indeed  if  Leo  left  any  of  his  subjects'  sins 
unremitted,  where  there  was  money  to  purchase  exemption 
from  punishment.  Half  the  profits  in  every  Catholic  land 
the  pope  claimed  as  his  own.1  The  dealer  of  these  indul- 
gences in  Germany,  the  Dominican  Tetzel,  passed  through 
the  country  in  15 16  in  a  gay  carriage,  escorted  by  three 
horsemen,  with  the  papal  bull  on  a  velvet  cushion  before 
him,  and  as  he  drew  near  each  town  or  village  the  popu- 
lace came  forth  in  eager  crowds  to  meet  him.  Entering  a 
church  at  once  and  mounting  the  pulpit,  he  shouted  in  a 
sonorous  voice  :  "  Ye  priests,  ye  nobles,  ye  tradesmen,  ye 
wives,  ye  maidens,  and  ye  young  men,  hearken  to  your 
departed  parents  and  friends  who  cry  to  you  from  the 
bottomless  abyss  :  '  We  are  enduring  horrible  torment !  a 
small  alms  would  deliver  us ;  you  can  give  it,  and  you  will 
not ! ' "  "  The  very  moment  that  the  money  clinks  against 
the  bottom  of  the  chest,  the  soul  escapes  from  purgatory 
and  flies  free  to  heaven."  2 

A  less  impetuous  soul  than  Martin  Luther's  might  have 
been  stirred  by  such  scenes  and  words  as  these ;  and  we 
are  not  surprised  to  find  him  indignantly  denouncing  the 
whole  system  to  his  bishop,  as  a  "  scandalous  traffic,"  and, 
in  a  sermon  to  a  crowded  assembly,  declaring  that  "  indul- 
gences, instead  of  expiating,  leave  the  Christian  in  the  filth 
of  his  sins.     Give  first  to  your  needy  brother,"  he  told 

1  Hase,  p.  363. 

2  D'Aubigne's  Reformation,  i.  209,  212. 


142  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

his  hearers,  "  and  then  if  you  have  means  bestow  them  on 
the  Basilica  of  St.  Peter." l 

The  crowds  who  had  collected  to  hear  Luther's  sermon 
went  away  profoundly  moved;  yet  the  sale  of  indul- 
gences continued,  and  Luther  was  not  one  to  take  any 
backward  step.  About  a  month  later,  on  All  Saints'  Day, 
October  31,  151 7,  as  multitudes  of  German  pilgrims  were 
pouring  into  the  Catholic  church  of  Wittenberg  to  gaze 
upon  the  relics  which  the  Elector  had  placed  there,  and 
thereby  receive  plenary  indulgence,  their  attention  was 
arrested  by  a  paper  nailed  upon  the  gate,  containing 
ninety-five  distinct  propositions  against  the  doctrine  of 
indulgences.  Pious  pilgrims  shuddered  as  they  read  such 
blasphemies  as  these  :  — 

1.  "When  our  Master  and  Lord  Jesus  Christ  says 
1  Repent,'  he  means  that  the  whole  life  of  his  faithful  ser- 
vants upon  earth  should  be  a  constant  and  continual 
repentance. 

2.  "This  cannot  be  understood  of  the  sacrament  of 
penance  as  administered  by  the  priest." 

6.  "  The  pope  cannot  remit  any  condemnation :  but 
can  only  declare  and  confirm  the  remission  that  God  him- 
self has  given." 

8.  "The  laws  of  ecclesiastical  penance  can  only  be 
imposed  on  the  living,  and  in  no  wise  respect  the  dead." 

25.    "  The  same  power  which  the  pope  has  over  pur- 
gatory, in  the  church  at  large,  is  possessed  by  every  bishop 
in  his  diocese,  and  every  curate  in  his  parish." 
1  Darras,  ii.  47,  48. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  I43 

27.  "  Those  persons  preach  human  inventions  who  pre- 
tend that,  at  the  very  moment  when  the  money  sounds  in 
the  strong  box,  the  soul  escapes  from  purgatory. 

28.  "This  is  certain;  that,  as  soon  as  the  money 
sounds,  avarice  and  the  love  of  gain  come  in,  grow,  and 
multiply." 

32.  "Those  who  fancy  themselves  sure  of  their  salva- 
tion by  indulgences  will  go  to  the  devil  with  those  who 
teach  them  this  doctrine." 

36.  "  Every  Christian  who  feels  true  repentance  for  his 
sins  has  perfect  remission  from  the  punishment  and  from 
the  sin,  without  the  need  of  indulgences."1 

The  Protestant  Reformation  had  begun.  In  those  dar- 
ing words,  the  great  heresy  which  had  been  trembling  on 
men's  lips  for  years  was  spoken,  and  the  ninety-five  theses 
became  at  once  the  rallying  cry  for  a  new  faith.  If  man's 
sins  could  really  be  remitted  through  his  own  repentance 
simply,  without  the  intervention  of  the  church,  if  faith 
alone  could  accomplish  his  salvation,  with  no  aid  from  the 
works  of  penance  or  confession,  if  priest  and  curate  had 
the  same  power  over  sins  as  pope  or  bishop,  the  question 
must  follow  at  once  :  What  need  of  pope  or  church  ? 
And  that  question  was  Protestantism. 

The  posting  of  these  theses  was  Luther's  own  act; 
done,  as  he  assures  us,  without  consultation  even  with  his 
most  intimate  friends.  What  the  response  to  it  would  be, 
he  did  not  know.     No  more  does  he  seem  to  have  been 

1  D'Aubigne,  i.  239-242. 


144  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

aware  of  the  ultimate  bearings  of  the  truth  he  had  so 
indignantly  uttered;  for  he  believed  in  all  sincerity  that 
the  credit  of  the  pope  was  compromised  by  the  traffic  in 
indulgences,  and  that  pope  and  church  would  sustain 
him  against  the  monks  and  make  his  cause  their  own.1 
"  I  entered  on  this  controversy,"  he  said  at  a  later  day, 
11  without  any  settled  purpose  or  inclination,  and  entirely 
unprepared.  I  call  God  to  witness  this  who  sees  the 
heart." 2  "  Instead  of  being  abused  and  condemned,  I 
expected  to  be  warmly  encouraged  and  commended.", 
The  effect,  however,  was  instantaneous.  Luther's  theses 
spread  like  wild-fire.  "  In  the  space  of  a  fortnight,"  says 
the  contemporary  historian  Myconius, '  quoted  by  D'Au- 
bigne, "  they  had  spread  over  Germany,  and  within  a 
month  they  had  run  through  all  Christendom  as  if  angels 
themselves  had  been  the  bearers  of  them  to  all  men." 
"They  were  afterwards,"  says  D'Aubigne,  "translated  into 
Dutch  and  into  Spanish,  and  a  traveller  carried  them  for 
sale  as  far  as  Jerusalem."  "  Before  a  month  had  elapsed, 
they  had  found  their  way  to  Rome."  3  The  students  at 
Wittenberg,  after  the  wont  of  students,  received  the  rebel- 
lious document  with  shouts  of  applause,  and  burned  Tet- 
zel's  answer  to  it  in  the  public  square.4  Others  besides 
young  students  hailed  this  act  with  joy.  Reuchlin  and 
Erasmus,  great  theologians  of  the  day,  applauded  Luther's 
courage ;  the  prior  of  Steinlausitz,  and  bishop  of  Wiirz- 
burg,  publicly  expressed  their  delight ;  even  the  emperor 

1  D'Aubigne,  i.  238.  2  Id.  p.  245. 

3  Id.  i.  248.  4  Darras,  ii.  49. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 45 

Maximilian  read  the  theses,  understood  their  aim,  and 
admired  their  power ;  the  Elector  of  Saxony,  Frederic  the 
Wise,  though  cautious  and  anxious  at  first,  soon  became 
Luther's  chief  supporter  and  protector;  Albert  Diirer, 
first  of  German  painters,  sent  him  a  gift  in  recognition  of 
his  services  to  the  church ;  while  Leo  contented  himself 
with  saying,  "  It  is  a  drunken  German  who  has  written 
these  lines ;  when  he  is  sober  he  will  talk  very  differ- 
ently." l 

Luther  clung  long  to  the  idea  that  his  doctrines  were 
no  attack  upon  the  pope  or  church.  As  late  as  1520  he 
wrote  to  Leo  a  letter  full  of  personal  regard,  addressing 
him  as  the  "  Most  Holy  Father  in  God,"  and  saying,  "  I 
have  never  ceased  by  prayers  and  sighs  to  pray  God  for 
your  prosperity  and  that  of  your  pontificate."  2  But  the 
result  was  inevitable.  At  the  very  time  when  Luther 
was  thus  addressing  the  pope,  the  bull  of  excommunica- 
tion, once  so  fearful  a  weapon,  was  in  the  hands  of  the 
papal  nuncio,  and  was  soon  known  throughout  rebellious 
Germany.3  On  June  16,  1520,  the  bull  was  issued  ;  con- 
demning forty-one  propositions  taken  from  Luther's  writ- 
ings, ordering  his  works  to  be  burned,  and  pronouncing 
excommunication  upon  their  author  unless  he  recanted 
within  sixty  days.4  Luther  responded  to  this,  December 
10,  1520,  by  leading  a  procession  of  students  out  of  the 
city,  and  throwing  the  bull,  with  the  book  of  the  canon 
law,   into   the   flames.5     At   Erfurth,   the   students,   with 

1  D'Aub.  i.  250-257.  2  Id.  ii.  117. 

3  Id.  122.  4  Hase,  369.  6  Id.  370. 

10 


146  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

greater  levity,  tore  copies  of  the  bull  in  pieces.,  and  threw 
them  into  the  river,  with  the  profane  pun,  "  Since  it  is  a 
bubble  [bulla]  let  us  see  it  float." ' 

One  further  step  in  the  condemnation  of  this  dangerous 
heresy  remained.  In  1521,  the  Imperial  Diet  was  to 
assemble  at  Worms,  where  the  young  emperor,  Charles 
V.,  was  to  meet,  for  the  first  time,  his  German  subjects. 
The  Diet  was  called  upon  to  confirm  the  papal  edict  by 
placing  Luther  under  the  ban  of  the  empire  ;  and  Luther 
was  summoned  to  appear  in  person.  A  safe-conduct 
from  the  emperor  was  given  him,  as  a  surety  against  vio- 
lence ;  but  Luther  could  not  forget  that  just  a  century 
before,  Huss,  under  similar  charges,  and  with  a  similar 
safe-conduct,  had  gone  to  imprisonment  and  death.  The 
anxiety  of  Luther's  friends  was  great,  therefore,  and  they 
expostulated  earnestly  with  him  against  venturing  upon 
such  sure  destruction.  Luther  does  not  seem  to  have 
faltered.  "Were  there  as  many  devils  in  Worms  as 
there  are  roof- tiles,"  he  said,  with  characteristic  vigor  of 
speech,  "  I  would  go  on."  The  streets  of  Worms  were 
thronged  as  he  passed  through  on  his  way  to  the  Hall  of 
the  Diet,  and  the  solemn  words  greeted  him  from  the 
house-tops,  as  though  it  were  clear  that  he  must  either 
recant  or  die,  "  Whosoever  denieth  me  before  men  ! " 2 
Their  fears  were  vain.  Luther  stood  firm.  "  Until  con- 
vinced by  Holy  Scriptures,"  he  said  as  he  closed  his 
defence  before  Emperor,  Elector,  and  Diet,  "  I  can  and 
will  retract  nothing ;  for  it  is  neither  safe  nor  expedient  to 
1  D'Aub.  ii.  125.  2  Carlyle's  Heroes,  p.  167. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 47 

act  against  conscience.  Here  I  stand ;  I  can  do  nothing 
else ;  God  help  me  !  Amen  ! " 1  In  a  letter  to  Lucas 
Cranach,  written  on  the  way  back  from  Worms,  Luther 
himself  describes  the  event  in  a  somewhat  less  heroic 
vein  than  that  in  which  history  is  wont  to  record  it.  "  I 
thought  his  imperial  Majesty  would  have  assembled  a 
doctor,  or  perhaps  fifty,  to  refute  the  monk  in  fair  discus- 
sion ;  but  nothing  more  was  done  than  this,  —  '  Are  these 
books  thine  ?  '  '  Yes  ! '  '  Wilt  thou  retract  them  or  not  ? ' 
No  ! '  '  Then  begone.' "  2  Through  the  personal  influence 
of  the  Elector,  who  had  himself  declined  the  imperial 
crown,  and  had  contributed  greatly  to  the  election  of 
Charles,  Luther's  safe-conduct  was  sacredly  observed,  and 
although  he  was  formally  condemned  by  the  Diet,  yet  his 
defence  won  the  hearts  of  many  who  pronounced  his 
sentence.3 

As  at  this  point  the  Lutheran  schism  was  virtually  com- 
plete, and  as  the  further  progress  of  the  movement  has 
been  often  told,  let  us  stop  here  to  ask  what  was  the 
theological  significance  of  the  movement.  In  what  did 
its  departure  from  Catholicism  consist? 

The  ground  which  Luther  took  at  the  beginning,  as 
we  have  seen,  in  attacking  indulgences,  was  simply  that 
sins  are  remitted,  not  by  popes  or  bishops,  in  the  dis- 
charge of  certain  obligations,  but  freely  and  graciously 
upon  repentance  and  faith.     In  this  position,  as  Luther 

1  Hase,  p.  371. 

2  Luther's  Briefe  (De  Wette),  i.  p.  588. 

3  Hase,  370,  372. 


148  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

afterwards  saw,  lay  the  great  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  not  Works,  which  became  the  doctrinal  basis  of 
Protestantism.  To  this  he  attributed  the  success  of  his 
reform.  "  It  is  doctrine  that  we  attack  in  the  followers 
of  the  papacy,"  said  he;  "  Huss  and  Wyckliffe  only 
attacked  their  life ;  but  in  attacking  their  doctrine  we 
seize  the  goose  by  the  throat.  I  have  overcome  the 
pope  because  my  doctrine  is  according  to  God,  and  his 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  devil."  1  That  he  had  really  over- 
come the  pope,  Luther  did  not  question.  Here  is  an- 
other assertion  of  the  fact,  which  I  give  for  its  style. 
"  The  world  is  a  vast  and  grand  game  of  cards,  made  up 
of  emperors,  kings,  and  princes.  The  pope  for  several 
centuries  has  beaten  emperors,  princes,  and  kings.  They 
have  been  put  down  and  taken  up  by  him.  Then  came 
our  Lord  God ;  he  dealt  the  cards ;  he  took  the  most 
worthless  of  them  all,  and  with  it  he  has  beaten  the  pope, 
the  conqueror  of  the  kings  of  the  earth.  .  .  .  There  is 
the  ace  of  God."  2 

But  however  plainly  the  reformers  afterwards  saw  in 
their  movement  the  downfall  of  the  pope,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  Justification  by  Faith,  they  did  not  see  these 
things  at  first,  but  reached  them  only  by  successive  steps. 
In  a  dispute  with  Dr.  Eck,  Chancellor  of  the  University 
of  Ingolstadt,  held  in  the  palace  of  Duke  George  at 
Leipsic,  in  15 19,  Luther  found  himself  engaged  in  a 
twelve  days'  controversy  upon  the  primacy  of  the  pope, 
and  denying,  for  the  first  time,  on  grounds  of  Scripture 
1  D'Aubigne,  i.  243.  2  Id.,  Preface,  vii. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 49 

and  history,  that  the  pope  was  the  one  vicar  of  Christ,  or 
the  universal  bishop  of  the  church.  It  was  in  this  same 
controversy  that  the  young  Philip  Melanchthon  first 
appeared,  whose  great  learning,  and  thoroughly  trained 
mind,  determined  from  that  hour,  quite  as  much  as  did 
Luther's  profounder  convictions,  the  form  of  Protestant 
theology.1 

In  1520,  in  his  "Address  to  the  Christian  Nobles,"  of 
which  four  thousand  copies  circulated  between  June  and 
September,  and  which  may  be  considered  his  declaration 
of  war  against  the  papacy,  Luther  took  the  ground  that 
the  strength  of  Romanism  lay  in  its  appeal  to  the  spiritual 
as  above  secular  power,  and  so  was  led  to  the  doctrine 
that  all  Christians  alike  belong  to  the  spiritual  order.2 
Beginning  by  declaring  bishops  and  priests  equal  to  popes, 
he  thus  ended  by  proclaiming  every  true  Christian  equal 
to  the  head  of  the  church.  This  address  was  followed 
immediately  by  his  tract  called  the  "  Babylonish  Captivity 
of  the  Church,"  in  which  he  took  the  still  stronger  ground 
that  the  papacy  was  not  a  human,  but  a  devilish  institu- 
tion, claimed,  like  Huss  before  him,  that  the  cup  should 
be  administered  to  the  laity,  and  rejected  all  sacraments 
but  baptism,  penance,  and  the  Lord's  Supper.3 

Thus  far  Luther  had  had  little  to  do  but  attack  certain 
falsehoods  and  corruptions  of  the  papacy,  and  assert 
spiritual  freedom.  How  far  he  was  actually  ready  to  go 
in  the  doctrine  of  freedom,  was  a  question  which  he  was 

1  D'Aubigne,  ii.  30-56.  2  Hase,  368. 

3  Luther's  Samtliche  Schriften,  1750,  vol.  xix. ;  Hase,  369. 


150  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

forced  abruptly  to  answer  in  1524,  by  a  dangerous  revolt 
of  the  German  peasants,  who  made  his  doctrines  their 
pretext  for  rebelling  against  both  secular  and  spiritual 
nobility,  and  claiming  community  of  goods  and  universal 
equality.  In  response  to  this,  Luther  issued  at  once  a 
fiery  address  to  the  Princes  of  Saxony,  urging  the  prin- 
ciple of  absolute  obedience,  and  even  advising  the  princes 
to  slaughter  the  peasants  like  so  many  mad  dogs.  "  Kill 
them,"  he  writes,  "  as  the  Jews  were  ordered  to  kill  the 
Amorites  and  Canaanites,"  —  a  too  legitimate  example 
which  was  most  faithfully  followed.1  With  contingencies 
like  these  to  meet,  Luther  was  not  slow  in  concluding  that 
not  only  must  the  Catholic  church  be  overthrown,  but 
another  must  be  ready  to  take  its  place.2 

It  was  not  until  this  same  year,  four  years  after  his 
excommunication,  seven  years  after  his  first  act  of  rebel- 
lion, that  Luther  laid  aside  his  friar's  frock ;  having  clung 
till  then  to  his  monastic  habit  with  the  same  lingering 
affection  with  which  he  held  to  the  papacy  long  after  the 
principles  of  the  papacy  had  been  finally  abandoned. 
One  year  later,  another  event  occurred  which,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  church,  stamped  the  heretic  and  his  heresy  with 
far  deeper  infamy  than  all  that  had  preceded  it,  and 
showed  that  no  retreat  was  contemplated.  In  June, 
1525,  the  former  Augustinian  monk,  Martin  Luther,  was 
married  to  the  former  Cistercian  nun,  Catharine  von  Bora. 

In  1529,  at  the  second  Diet  of  Speyer,  on  occasion  of 

1  Eyn  brieff  an  die  Furst.  z.  Sachsen,  v.  d.  auffrurischen  geyst. 
Wittenberg,  1524.  2  Hase,  p.  378. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  151 

a  protest  offered  by  several  of  the  princes  engaged  in  the 
reform,  the  party  received  the  name  of  Protestants.1  In 
1530,  at  the  Diet  of  Augsburg,  summoned  by  Charles  V., 
after  his  peace  with  France  and  Rome,  for  the  purpose  of 
healing  the  division  in  his  German  church,  a  statement 
of  faith,  known  as  the  Confession  of  Augsburg,  was  drawn 
up,  at  his  request,  in  behalf  of  the  protesting  states,  by 
Melanchthon.  This  Confession,  which  is  interesting  to 
us  as  the  first  official  announcement  of  Protestant  doc- 
trine, was  agreed  upon  only  after  a  three  months'  debate, 
in  which  not  merely  the  points  of  controversy  between 
Protestant  and  Catholic,  but  also  those  at  issue  among  the 
Protestants  themselves,  had  to  be  brought  into  satisfactory 
form.  Melanchthon  found  his  task  no  easy  one,  and  suc- 
ceeded, as  peacemakers  commonly  do,  only  in  winning 
for  himself  the  renewed  hostility  of  his  opponents,  and 
the  life-long  suspicion  and  resentment  of  many  of  his 
fellow-reformers.  The  Confession,  which  was  presented 
to  the  Emperor  both  in  Latin  and  in  German,  begins  with 
an  affirmation  of  the  Trinity,  as  based  upon  the  symbol 
of  Nicsea,  together  with  a  condemnation  of  the  Mani- 
chaean  and  Arian  heresies,  and  is  divided  into  two  parts  : 
the  first,  in  twenty-one  articles,  showing  the  faith  and 
doctrine  of  the  new  church ;  the  second,  in  seven  articles, 
showing  the  abuses  in  the  ancient  worship  which  Protest- 
antism aimed  to  correct.  It  is  noticeable  that  nothing 
is  said  of  the  divine  right  of  popes,  the  number  of  the 
sacraments,  or  the  authority  of  Scripture.  The  mass, 
1  Hase,  p.  381. 


152  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

confession,  private  absolution,  and  the  "power  of  the 
keys  "  are  reaffirmed ;  the  real  presence  of  Christ  in  the 
bread  or  wine  is  asserted  (in  the  Latin  version  at  least) 
as  positively  as  any  Romanist  could  desire  ;  and  the  sacra- 
ments and  the  Word  are  declared  "  effectual,  though  they 
be  delivered  by  evil  men."  It  is  also  claimed,  in  the 
Latin  version,  that  "  the  churches  among  us  dissent  in  no 
article  of  faith  from  the  Catholic  church."  The  main 
points  insisted  upon  are  :  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith,  the  administering  of  the  sacrament  in  both  kinds, 
and  the  right  of  priests  to  marry;  while  the  worship 
of  saints,  monastic  vows,  the  ensnaring  of  conscience  by 
useless  tradition,  and  the  compulsory  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Day,  or  other  church  holidays,  are  denounced  as 
abuses.1 

This  Confession  was  by  no  means  accepted  by  the 
reformers  themselves  as  a  complete  utterance  of  their 
faith.  Even  during  the  same  session  of  the  Diet,  it  was 
supplemented  by  Melanchthon's  Apology ;  and  afterwards, 
in  1537,  by  the  "Articles  of  Smalkald,"  drawn  up  by 
Luther  himself;  to  which  again  Luther's  Lesser  and 
Greater  Catechism  must  afterwards  be  added,  before  the 
creed  of  the  Lutheran  Church  could  be  considered  com- 
plete.2 The  first  symbol  of  Protestantism,  therefore, 
consists  of  a  Confession,  an  Apology,  Articles,  a  Lesser 
and  a  Greater  Catechism  ;  a  striking  proof  of  the  difficulty 

1  "Die  symbolischen  Bucher  der  Evang.-luther-Kirche,"  Mtiller, 
1848.  Comp.  Schaff's  "Creeds  of  Christendom,"  vol.  iii.;  D'Au- 
bigne,  iv.  186-197. 

2  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom,  iii. ;  Hase,  383,  390. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY."  1 53 

which  Protestantism  encountered  the  moment  it  aban- 
doned the  simple  work  of  reform  and  attempted  to  find 
for  itself  a  doctrinal  basis. 

Let  it  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  even  these  state- 
ments were  easily  agreed  upon,  or  betokened  a  perfect 
accord  on  the  part  of  that  one  fraction  of  the  Protestant 
church  which  called  itself  distinctively  Lutheran.  To 
understand  perfectly  the  history  of  the  times,  it  is  impor- 
tant to  notice  some  of  the  divisions  within  the  Lutheran 
church  which  these  voluminous  confessions  hardly  suc- 
ceeded in  removing  or  concealing. 

Not  even  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  Justification  by 
Faith  passed  unchallenged  or  was  accepted  without  a 
struggle.  Luther  himself  took  extreme  ground.  "Faith 
alone  saves,"  he  said ;  "  human  acts  have  no  merit ;  good 
works,  on  which  alone  the  church  relies  in  its  penances 
and  confessions,  are  useless."  "No,"  answered  Melanch- 
thon,  "  not  useless  ;  good  works  may  be  necessary,  though 
not  meritorious.  Indeed  the  will  of  man  must  conspire 
with  the  grace  of  God."  "  No,"  said  Luther,  "  God's 
will  is  omnipotent;  man's  disappears.  God  predestines 
all  to  happiness  or  misery."  These  quotations  represent 
an  actual  controversy  between  these  two  friends;  from 
which  arose  on  Luther's  side  an  Augustinianism  more 
Augustinian  than  that  of  the  Catholic  church.  His  imme- 
diate followers  went  so  far  as  to  claim  that  "  good  works 
are  pernicious  to  salvation,"  and  branded  the  followers 
of  Melanchthon  with  the  opprobrious  title  of  Synergists, 
To    be   called   "Synergist"   was  of   course   more   than 


154        ORTHODOXY  AND  HERESY. 

Protestant  patience  could  endure ;  and  the  little  German 
church  was  for  many  years  rent  by  a  furious  strife,  in 
which  university  was  pitted  against  university,  Wittenberg 
against  the  more  Orthodox  Jena,  and  in  which  the  fierce 
alternations  of  victory  and  defeat  recalled  vividly  those 
hours  of  early  Christendom  when  Arians  and  Athanasians 
succeeded  each  other  so  swiftly  that  it  was  hard  to  tell  to 
which  the  Christian  empire  really  belonged.  For  a  time 
Synergism  seemed  doomed  to  defeat ;  and  the  Synergist, 
Strigelius,  was  thrown  into  prison ;  but  finally  it  recovered 
its  power,  and  the  Anti-Synergists  were  in  1561  banished 
from  the  country.1 

But  the  bitterest,  controversy  which  the  young  church 
knew,  and  perhaps  the  bitterest  which  Christendom  has 
ever  known,  was  that  which  arose  over  the  Lord's  Supper. 
Luther,  while  surrendering  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  tran- 
substantiation,  as  carrying  with  it  the  supernatural  power 
of  the  priesthood,  yet  insisted  upon  the  actual  presence 
of  Christ's  body  in  the  elements ;  to  designate  which  he 
adopted  the  convenient  term  consubstantiation.  When 
Christ  says,  "  This  is  my  body,"  argued  Luther,  he  meant 
it.  The  bread,  it  is  true,  does  not  become  his  body  at 
the  word  of  the  priest ;  yet  none  the  less  is  Christ's  body 
literally  there,  and  literally  eaten  by  the  believer.  Me- 
lanchthon,  on  the  other  hand,  like  Calvin,  leaned  to  a 
spiritual  interpretation  of  the  words  of  Jesus ;  but  insisted 
that  neither  Luther's  interpretation  nor  Calvin's  was 
essential  to  true  communion.  Once  more,  a  warm  con- 
1  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie,  xv. ;  Hase,  406. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  155 

troversy  between  the  two  leaders,  and  a  still  warmer  strife 
between  their  followers,  the  extent  of  which  may  be  con- 
jectured from  the  fact  that  Melanchthon  was  considered 
far  too  yielding,  because  he  was  willing  even  to  maintain 
fellowship  with  the  Swiss  when  they  interpreted  Christ's 
language  in  a  figurative  sense.  Luther,  on  the  contrary, 
angrily  refused  all  overtures,  and  when  Zwingli  offered  his 
hand  in  token  of  reconciliation,  openly  rejected  it.  His 
followers  remained  true  to  this  spirit  after  his  death. 
When  the  noble  Polish  refugee,  John  of  Laski,  was  driven 
from  England,  with  his  entire  congregation,  for  his  denial 
of  the  real  presence,  he  could  find  no  asylum  in  Lutheran 
Germany,  but  was  treated  as  a  robber,  poisoner,  and 
martyr  of  the  devil.  The  followers  of  Melanchthon  were 
obliged  to  receive  a  heretical  title  once  more,  and  under 
the  name  of  Philippists  were  hunted  down  and  at  last 
imprisoned  or  banished  from  the  land.  In  1573,  when 
they  were  finally  exterminated,  a  medal  was  struck  in 
commemoration  of  this  "  triumph  of  Christ  over  human 
reason  and  the  devil."1 

So  hard  was  the  path  which  the  new  religion  had  to 
tread  in  reaching  its  doctrinal  expression  and  doctrinal 
unity.  Indeed,  years  after  its  "  Confession  of  Augsburg," 
years  after  its  "  Articles  of  Smalkald,"  each  of  which  was 
accepted  at  the  time  as  the  final  statement  of  its  faith,  so 
many  and  bitter  were  still  the  controversies  within  the 
Lutheran  church,  respecting  the  fundamental  principles 
of  Protestantism,  that  it  was  found  necessary,  in  1577,  as 
1  Hase,  389,  404,  407. 


156  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  last  endeavor  to  secure  doctrinal  harmony,  to  draw  up 
what  was  called  a  "  Form  of  Concord,"  in  which  all  dis- 
puted points  were  handled  as  delicately  as  possible,  and 
which,  instead  of  being  exposed  to  the  hazards  of  a 
general  synod,  was  offered  for  final  acceptance  to  the 
imperial  Diet,  whose  scent  for  heresy,  it  was  supposed, 
would  not  be  quite  so  keen  as  that  of  professed  theo- 
logians.1 

Severe  as  were  its  own  doctrinal  strifes,  however,  the 
young  church  could  by  no  means  deny  itself  the  luxury 
of  heretics  or  of  persecutions.  The  following  imperfect 
list  will  show  that  in  this  respect  Lutheranism  did  not  feel 
the  loss  of  popes  or  councils,  and  could  treat  a  dissenter 
as  loftily  as  though  it  had  a  creed  and  tribunal  of  its 
own.  In  1566,  certain  doctrines  concerning  Justification, 
which  were  hostile  to  Luther's,  were  pronounced  heretical, 
and  Funck,  the  main  advocate  of  these  doctrines,  was 
executed.'2  In  1560,  as  we  have  already  seen,  Synergism 
was  declared  heresy,  and  Strigelius  imprisoned;  in  1573, 
during  the  sacramentarian  controversy,  Wigand  and  Hess- 
husius  were  expelled  from  their  professorships  at  Jena,  and 
from  the  country;3  in  1602,  as  final  fruits  of  the  same 
strife,  Nicholas  Crell,  Chancellor  of  the  Palatinate,  after 
ten  years' imprisonment,  was  beheaded;4  in  1631,  Kepler, 
who  was  a  devout  Lutheran,  yet  who  found  in  Protestant- 
ism no  kindlier  a  home  for  scientific  thought  than  Galileo 
had  found  in  Romanism,  "  was  driven  from  the  Lord's 

1  Hase,  410;  Hagenbach's  Hist,  of  Doc.  ii.  146. 

2  Hase,  p.  404.  3  Id.  p.  408.  4  Id.  p.  411. 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 57 

fold  as  an  unsound  sheep,"  because  he  doubted  whether 
the  Lord's  body  was  truly  omnipresent.1 

Such,  in  very  brief  outline,  was  '  the  great  religious 
movement  of  the  sixteenth  century,  which  we  are  accus- 
tomed to  call  the  Reformation,  which  the  Catholic  church 
styles  the  Lutheran  Heresy.  Which  name  is  right  ?  In 
the  title  to  this  discourse,  as  you  have  noticed,  I  have 
chosen  the  latter;  and  I  have  done  this  out  of  simple 
regard  for  historic  truth.  If  there  is  any  such  thing  as 
heresy  in  the  Christian  church,  if  Arianism  or  Pelagian- 
ism  is  heresy,  then  Lutheranism  is  certainly  heresy.  So 
far  as  Protestantism  is  content  to  be  merely  a  protest  in 
behalf  of  pure  Christianity  against  the  corruptions  and 
tyrannies  of  the  papacy,  it  has  claim  to  the  title  of  a 
Reformation;  the  moment  it  assumes  a  system  of  doc- 
trinal faith,  and  raises  a  theological  standard  of  its  own, 
it  must  step  into  the  ranks  of  heresy.  The  point  is  a  sim- 
ple one.  Scripture  having  in  itself  no  doctrines,  and 
all  Christian  doctrines  being,  therefore,  the  creation  of  the 
church,  to  forsake  the  church  is  to  forsake  the  doctrines, 
and  forsake  the  only  authority  on  which  doctrines  are 
based ;  so  that  the  only  alternative  of  Catholicism  is 
heresy. 

Let  us  see  how  the  case  stands.  Up  to  a  certain  point 
Protestantism  accepts  the  decrees  of  the  church.  Luth- 
eranism, as  we  have  seen,  bases  its  belief  in  the  Trinity 
entirely  on  the  Symbol  of  Nicaea,  as  indeed  it  could  not 
rest  it  elsewhere.  It  appends  to  its  own  confession  what 
1  Hase,  p.  411. 


158  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

it  calls  the  three  General  Symbols  of  the  church,  the 
Apostolic,  the  Nicaean,  the  Athanasian.  But  the  decrees 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  concerning  Lutheranism  are  just 
as  binding  as  those  of  Nicaea  concerning  Arianism.  What 
sanction  has  the  article  which  condemns  the  faith  of 
Arius,  that  does  not  belong  to  the  articles  which  condemn 
the  belief  of  Luther?  Do  you  say  it  was  the  universal 
church  that  condemned  Arius  ?  But  it  was  the  same 
church,  acting  under  precisely  the  same  forms,  which 
condemned  Luther.  Do  you  say  it  was  the  General 
Councils  of  Nicaea,  of  Ephesus,  of  Chalcedon,  which  con- 
demned the  ancient  doctrines?  So  it  was  the  General 
Council  of  Trent  which  condemned  these  later  doctrines. 
Do  you  say  it  was  only  a  vote  of  a  majority  which  made 
Trent  Catholic  and  Augsburg  heresy?  So  it  was  only  the 
vote  of  a  majority  at  Nicaea  which  made  Athanasius  and  the 
Trinity  orthodoxy,  Arius  and  Arianism  heresy.  Do  you 
say  it  was  mere  papal  tyranny  which  carried  the  decision 
of  Trent  ?  So  it  was  mere  imperial  tyranny  which  carried 
the  decisions  of  Nicaea  and  Chalcedon.  Do  you  say  papal 
supremacy  is  no  part  of  the  gospel,  whatever  councils 
may  say,  and,  therefore,  no  essential  part  of  Christianity? 
Neither  is  "  three  persons  in  one,"  or  "  two  natures  in  one 
person  "  part  of  the  Gospel,  whatever  councils  may  say, 
and  is,  therefore,  no  essential  part  of  Christianity.  Do  you 
say  the  Christian  believer  has  an  indefeasible  right  to  ac- 
cept or  reject  the  purely  human  decrees  of  Trent?  So 
has  the  Christian  believer  an  indefeasible  right  to  accept 
or  reject  the  purely  human  decrees  of  Nicaea.     Do  you  say 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  1 59 

the  Catholic  church  was  corrupt  in  the  sixteenth  century, 
and  needed  change  and  renewal?  But  was  not  the  Cath- 
olic church  corrupt  in  the  fourth  century,  when  three 
hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  accepted  their  theology  at 
the  hands  of  a  despotic  emperor  fresh  from  Paganism? 
or  in  the  fifth  century,  when  armed  monks  drove  dis- 
senting bishops  under  tables  until  they  signed  the  decrees 
of  the  Council,  and  one  archbishop  kicked  another  arch- 
bishop to  death? 

These  arguments  are  all  either  sound  or  unsound.  If 
unsound,  Lutheranism  is  of  course  wrong ;  if  sound,  then 
Lutheranism  with  Arianism  and  Nestorianism  and  Pela- 
gianism  is  right.  Every  reason  which  justifies  the  or- 
thodox Protestant  in  denying  Trent  and  the  Papacy, 
justifies  you  and  me  in  denying  Nicaea  and  the  Deity  of 
Christ,  Constantinople  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  Chalcedon 
and  the  Incarnation,  the  Athanasian  Creed  and  the  Trinity. 
Every  argument  which  would  make  you  or  me  accept 
Nicaea  and  the  Trinity,  would  make  the  orthodox  Protest- 
ant accept  Trent  and  the  Papacy  and  Penance  and  the 
Mass. 

Luther  was  right,  I  agree ;  but  in  being  right  he  justi- 
fied the  deniers  of  all  the  doctrines  which  issued  from 
preceding  councils ;  that  is,  all  the  doctrines  of  ortho- 
doxy. Luther  was  right,  I  agree ;  but  in  being  right,  he 
has  destroyed,  so  far  as  his  doctrines  prevail,  not  the  pa- 
pacy alone,  but  papacy  and  orthodoxy  both.  I  trust  this 
point  will  be  understood;  exactly  what  this  arch-heretic 
overthrew.     He  overthrew  orthodoxy ;  i.  e.,  outward  uni- 


l6o  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

formity  of  faith ;  authoritative  dogma.  I  trust  it  will  be 
understood  exactly  what  he  so  heroically,  however  un- 
intentionally, established.  He  established  absolute  in- 
dependence of  individual  belief,  as  against  pope  and 
council,  and  church  and  creed.  His  movement  was  a 
glorious  triumph  so  long  as  it  was  a  movement  for  free- 
dom from  ecclesiastical  rule  ;  it  was  a  conspicuous  failure, 
the  moment  it  tried  to  establish  an  ecclesiastical  authority 
of  its  own,  for  which  it  had  left  itself  no  basis. 

The  history  of  Protestantism  and  its  present  condition 
amply  bear  out  this  statement.  We  often  hear  of  a  Pro- 
testant Church ;  but  where  is  there  such  a  thing  ?  I  for 
one  have  never  seen  it.  Churches  are  not  a  church,  any 
more  than  families  are  a  state,  or  regiments  an  army,  or 
drops  of  water  a  lake,  or  bits  of  plank  a  ship.  No  Pro- 
testant Church  exists,  or  ever  has  existed.  A  hundred 
warring  sects,  each  with  heart  full  of  jealousies  and  fears, 
each  selfishly  intent  upon  its  own  enlargement,  each  chang- 
ing its  faith  with  every  year,  do  not  constitute  a  church, 
nor  offer  the  material  out  of  which  a  church  can  be 
formed.  Men  speak,  too,  of  Protestant  Orthodoxy  j  but 
if  it  exists,  where  is  it  to  be  found?  Who  confesses  it? 
What  council  has  framed  it  ?  What  church  subscribes  to 
it?  What  Evangelical  Alliance  has  adopted  it?  Who 
can  point  me  to  a  single  article  of  its  creed?  Who  can 
show  me  authority  for  a  single  Protestant  doctrine  ? 

In  a  word,  Catholicism  and  Orthodoxy  are  synonymous 
terms;  against  which  are  to  be  set  Protestantism  and 
Heresy.     All  Protestants   are   heretics   alike;   and   once 


THE   LUTHERAN   HERESY.  l6l 

being  heretics  the  varying  shades  of  their  heresy  are  of 
slight  account.  Protestantism,  in  our  eyes,  was  a  triumph 
of  pure  Christianity.  Yet  the  triumph  lay,  not  in  estab- 
lishing a  new  church  and  new  doctrines  against  the  old, 
but  in  emancipating  the  soul  from  all  ecclesiastical  fetters, 
and  bidding  it  reassume  its  spiritual  freedom. 

March  15,  1874. 


ftl 


VIII. 

OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES. 

I"  HAVE  spoken  thus  far  of  the  Protestant  Reformation 
■*•  only  in  its  connection  with  Martin  Luther.  But  this 
of  course  is  not  the  whole  of  Protestantism.  Luther's 
schism,  in  renouncing  the  source  of  all  doctrinal  authority, 
made  other  schisms  possible  and  inevitable.  This  fact 
appeared  at  the  outset.  Nit  only  is  there,  as  we  have 
shown,  no  Protestant  church  or  Protestant  orthodoxy 
to-day ;  there  never  has  been  either  the  one  or  the  other. 
The  worst  prophecies  of  Luther's  foes,  on  this  point,  were 
fully  verified.  Protestantism  fell  asunder  at  the  first  touch, 
and  has  crumbled  year  by  year  into  an  increasing  mass  of 
fragments.  Its  history  is,  and  must  always  be,  the  his- 
tory of  countless  sects. 

As  it  does  not  lie  within  the  scope  of  the  present  course 
of  lectures  to  take  up  all  these  fragments  of  heretical 
Christianity,  I  propose  to  limit  myself  to  such  as  will  best 
illustrate  this  tendency  in  Protestantism  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  towards  continual  disintegration.  While  one 
party  among  the  early  Protestants  were  anxious  to  retain 
as  many  as  possible  of  the  church  doctrines  and  keep  up 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 63 

in  the  new  faith  the  form  of  orthodoxy,  another  party 
wished  to  make  the  reform  a  radical  one,  and  get  back  be- 
hind all  doctrines  as  near  as  possible  to  primitive  Christian- 
ity. This  division  showed  itself,  as  in  earlier  days,  mainly 
upon  the  question  of  the  nature  of  Christ ;  and  can  be 
best  considered,  therefore,  under  the  two  heads  of  Trini- 
tarian and  Unitarian  heresies.  Let  us  look  to-night  at 
the  two  leading  movements,  in  Switzerland  and  England, 
which,  in  addition  to  Lutheranism,  constitute  Trinitarian 
heresy. 

In  the  year  15 16,  a  year  before  Luther  nailed  his  theses 
to  the  church-gate  at  Wittenberg,  the  pilgrims  to  the  clois- 
ter of  Maria- Einsiedeln,  in  Switzerland,  were  startled  by 
the  words  of  a  bold  young  priest,  telling  them  that 
their  prayers  and  gifts  to  the  Virgin,  whom  they  had 
come  especially  to  worship,  were  of  no  avail.  For  years 
they,  and  their  fathers  before  them,  had  come  annually  to 
this  sacred  place,  read  the  inscription  over  the  shrine, 
"  Here  is  complete  absolution  for  guilt  and  for  punish- 
ment of  sins,"  and  obtained  from  the  little  black  image  of 
the  Virgin  before  which  they  knelt,  recovery  from  many  a 
painful  disease ;  yet  here  was  a  preacher  of  the  convent 
who  assured  them  that  Mary  could  not  help  them.  "  The 
more  exalted  Mary  is  above  all  creatures,"  said  he,  "  the 
more  profound  her  reverence  toward  God  her  Son,  and 
the  more  abhorrent  will  it  be  to  her  to  receive  honor  as 
divine."1 

It  mattered  little,  as  you  see,  from  what  point  the  new 
1  ChristoffeFs  Life  of  Zwingli,  pp.  25,  26. 


1 64  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

truth  started.  In  Germany  it  was  the  sale  of  indulgences, 
in  Switzerland  it  was  the  worship  of  the  Virgin,  that 
aroused  the  latent  discontent  and  kindled  the  flames  of  the 
Reformation.  The  young  priest  was  Ulric  Zwingli,1  a  very 
different  person  from  Luther,  less  impetuous  and  rude, 
more  scholarly  and  gentle,  yet  with  quite  as  positive  a 
purpose,  and  holding  quite  as  definite  a  place  in  the  great 
work  of  the  Reformation.  Zwingli  was  a  devoted  student 
of  the  classics,  and  had  some  strange  notions  about  the 
philosophers  and  poets  in  whose  grand  words  he  found 
such  joy.  "Plato,"  he  said,  "drank  from  the  sacred 
fount ;  "  Seneca  was  "  a  holy  man ;  "  Pindar  "  speaks  of  the 
gods  in  language  so  divine "  that  the  very  knowledge  of 
the  true  God  must  be  there.  Indeed,  Pindar,  according 
to  Zwingli,  "  throws  light  upon  our  Scriptures,"  and  helps 
us  to  read  them  aright.2  From  the  classics  Zwingli  turned 
with  equal  zeal  to  the  Greek  Scriptures,  wrote  out  the 
Epistles  of  Paul  in  the  original  tongue,  committed  the 
entire  New  Testament  to  memory,  and  made  for  himself 
the  startling  discovery  that  "  Popery  is  not  in  the  Scrip- 
ture." While  Luther  was  still  disclaiming  all  hostility  to 
the  papacy,  and  seeking  to  avoid  a  rupture  with  Leo  X., 
Zwingli  declared  openly,  "  The  papacy  must  fall."  8 

Two  years  later,  this  same  preacher  appeared  in  Zurich, 
openly  denouncing  the  sale  of  indulgences,  as  Luther  had 
done  a  year  before  in  Germany ; 4  and  in  1523,  the  Zurich 

1  Born,  1484. 

2  Ranke's  Reformation,  p.  395 ;  Christoffel,  p.  386 ;  St.  Liguori, 
p.  293. 

3  Chris,  p.  31.  4  Chris,  p.  37. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 65 

Council  issued  a  decree  against  images  and  the  mass, 
declaring  that  everything  must  be  proved  by  the  Scriptures 
themselves ; 1  and  also,  in  the  same  year,  publicly  indorsed 
the  new  heresy  in  the  following  terms  :  "  We,  the  Burgo- 
masters, have  resolved  that  said  Huldrich  Zwingli  continue, 
as  hitherto,  to  preach  the  Holy  Scriptures."  2  How  great 
a  novelty  it  was  in  those  days  to  "  preach  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures," may  be  guessed  from  the  following  anecdote. 
When  Zwingli  advised  the  priests,  in  public  council,  to 
read  their  Bibles,  the  Pastor  of  Schlieren  arose  and 
gravely  answered,  "  How  can  one  who  has  a  small  living 
buy  a  Testament?  I  have  such  a  poor  living,  and  must 
here  put  in  a  word."  3 

Thus  the  Reformation  sprang  into  being,  almost  at  the 
same  hour,  in  two  lands  and  under  two  distinct  leaders. 
How  did  these  two  leaders  stand  related  to  each  other? 
is  our  next  question.  They  joined  forces,  of  course,  and 
made  common  cause  against  a  common  foe? 

It  is  strange  that  they  did  not.  Stranger  still  that 
instead  of  becoming  brothers  in  the  glorious  cause,  they 
became  bitter  foes.  Strangest  of  all  that  the  bitterness  of 
their  enmity  should  have  sprung  out  of  the  most  sacred 
mystery  of  their  common  faith.  That  two  such  men 
should  have  diifered  in  their  methods  and  their  beliefs  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at ;  but  that  they  should  have  failed  to 
realize  what  that  difference  meant,  that  there  was  not  mag- 
nanimity enough  on  both  sides,  or  devotion  enough  to  the 

1  Hase,  386 ;  Dorner's  Protestant  Theology,  ii.  232. 

2  Chris,  p.  107.  3  Id.  p.  108. 


1 66  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

great  Reform  to  enable  them  to  forget  their  differences,  b 
the  most  discreditable  fact  connected  with  the  early  history 
of  our  Protestant  faith.  The  story  of  this  discord  is  a 
mortifying  one  ;  but  it  must  not  be  passed  wholly  by. 

Several  years  before  Luther  and  Zwingli  met,  efforts  had 
been  made  to  unite  them;  but  an  instinct  of  hostility 
showed  itself  from  the  outset.  When  Luther's  name  first 
came  into  notoriety,  and  every  reformer  found  himself 
called  Lutheran,  Zwingli,  with  perhaps  natural  sensitive- 
ness, while  acknowledging  Luther's  great  services,  stoutly 
refused  to  be  called  by  his  name.  "  Who  called  me  Luth- 
eran," he  asked,  "  when  I  began  to  preach  these  doctrines 
in  15 1 6,  before  a  single  individual  in  this  part  of  the  coun- 
try had  heard  the  name  of  Luther?  Why  not  call  me 
Paulean  because  T  preach  as  Paul  preached  ?  Let  not  the 
name  of  Christ  be  changed  into  that  of  Luther,  for  Luther 
has  not  died  for  us."  l 

The  great  point  of  controversy  between  them,  however, 
was  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Luther's  view 
of  the  Swiss  ideas  upon  this  subject,  and  the  chances  of 
agreement  between  the  two  parties  in  the  beginning,  may 
be  gathered  from  these  words,  written  in  1527.  The 
Landgrave  of  Hesse,  conscious  of  the  necessity  of  uniting 
all  the  friends  of  reform  against  the  Emperor,  made  an 
effort  to  bring  Luther  and  Zwingli  together,  and  received 
this  response  from  Luther :  *  Well,  since  they  thus  insult 
all  reason,  I  will  give  them  a  Lutheran  warning.  Cursed 
be  this  concord  !  cursed  be  this  charity !  down,  down 
1  Chris,  pp.  73-75. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 6/ 

with  it,  to  the  bottomless  pit  of  hell !  These  enthusiasts, 
who  murder  Jesus  Christ,  my  Lord,  wish  to  murder  me 
also."  1 

What  did  he  mean  by  "murdering  Jesus  Christ  the 
Lord,"  and  why  this  explosion  of  wrath?  These  ques- 
tions cannot  be  better  answered  than  by  a  short  extract 
from  the  debate  which  actually  took  place  between  Luther 
and  Zwingli,  soon  after  these  words  were  written.  The 
Landgrave,  convinced  that  such  men  needed  only  to  meet 
face  to  face  to  honor  and  love  each  other,  summoned 
them  both,  with  many  companions,  to  Marburg  in  1529. 
It  was  the  one  opportunity  for  uniting  Swiss  and  German 
Protestantism  ;  and  in  what  spirit  the  opportunity  was  met 
these  words  will  show  better  than  any  description.  It 
should  be  remembered,  in  justice  to  both  parties,  that  the 
quotations  here  given  are  from  Zwingli's  account  of  the 
event. 

"  I  protest,"  said  Luther,  when  the  discussion  began, 
"that  I  differ  from  my  adversaries  with  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  that  I  always  shall 
differ.  Christ  has  said,  '  This  is  my  body : '  let  them 
show  me  that  a  body  is  not  a  body."  "  But,"  interposed 
Zwingli,  "  the  soul  is  fed  with  the  spirit,  not  with  the 
flesh."  Luther.  "  It  is  with  the  mouth  that  we  eat  the 
body ;  the  soul  does  not  eat  it."  Zwingli.  "  Christ's 
body  is  then  a  corporal  nourishment,  not  a  spiritual." 
Luther.  "You  are  captious."  Zwingli.  "Not  so,  but 
you    utter    contradictory    things."       Luther.    "  If    God 

1  D'Aubigne's  Reformation  in  Germany  and  Switzerland,  iv.  80. 


1 68  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

should  present  me  wild  apples,  I  should  eat  them  spirit- 
ually !  In  the  Eucharist,  the  mouth  receives  the  body  of 
Christ,  and  the  soul  believes  in  his  words."  Zwingli.  "  I 
oppose  you  with  this  article  of  our  faith :  '  He  ascended 
into  heaven.'  He  cannot  be  in  several  places  at  once." 
Luther.  "Were  I  desirous  of  reasoning  thus,  I  should 
prove  that  Christ  had  a  wife,  that  he  had  black  eyes  and 
lived  in  our  good  country  of  Germany.  I  care  little  about 
mathematics."  ...  "As  soon  as  the  words  of  consecration 
are  pronounced  over  the  bread,  the  body  is  there,  how- 
ever wicked  be  the  priest  who  pronounces  them."  Zwin- 
gli. "You  are  thus  re-establishing  Popery."  Luther. 
"  I  will  not,  when  Christ's  body  is  in  question,  hear  speak 
of  a  particular  place.  I  absolutely  will  not."  Zwingli. 
"  Must  everything,  then,  exist  precisely  as  you  will  it?  "  l 

Little  was  to  be  hoped  from  a  conference  like  this. 
Perhaps  the  Swiss  were  stubborn.  Certain  it  is  that 
Luther  would  listen  to  no  overtures,  save  that  his  oppo- 
nents should  forsake  their  ground  and  stand  on  his. 
When  at  last  no  further  argument  remained,  he  seized  the 
velvet  cover  from  the  table,  on  which  he  had  written  with 
chalk,  "  hoc  est  corpus  meum," 2  and  held  it  before  his 
adversaries'  face,  saying :  "  See  !  this  is  our  text.  You 
have  not  yet  driven  us  from  it,  and  we  care  for  no  other 
proofs." 8  As  they  were  about  to  separate,  the  Landgrave 
begged  them  at  least  to  part  fraternally,  and  Zwingli, 
bursting  into  tears,  offered  Luther  his  hand ;  but  Luther 

1  D'Aubigne,  iv.  pp.  80-100.  2  Matt.  xxvi.  26. 

8  D'Aubigne,  iv.  p.  98. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 69 

turned  angrily  away,  saying :  "  Yours  is  a  different  spirit 
from  ours."  Afterwards  he  added  :  "  You  do  not  belong 
to  the  union  of  the  Christian  church,  we  cannot  acknowl- 
edge you  as  brethren."  1 

In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  Landgrave,  aided  by  the 
readiness  of  the  Swiss  to  accept  any  terms  of  harmony 
which  did  not  falsify  their  own  belief,  succeeded  in  pre- 
venting immediate  rupture  and  in  establishing  a  temporary 
agreement  between  the  two  parties.  At  his  solicitation, 
Luther  finally  consented  to  draw  up  fifteen  articles  of 
faith  in  terms  common  to  both  sides,  in  which  the  article 
on  the  Lord's  Supp  ?r  was  skilfully  made  to  say  both  that 
the  "very  body  and  blood  of  Christ"  were  in  the  em- 
blems, and  that  they  might  be  spiritually  eaten;  so 
making  it  possible  for  both  parties  to  sign  the  paper.2 

No  real  union,  however,  was  effected,  as  the  signatures 
of  the  two  opponents  upon  the  same  paper  were  of  less 
account  than  the  conviction  left  in  their  minds  of  the 
wide  distance  in  spirit  and  in  belief  that  actually  sepa- 
rated them.  The  Swiss  theologians,  with  their  followers, 
although  not  exactly  accepting  Zwingli's  theory  of  the 
Eucharist  as  a  mere  sign  of  commemoration  and  fellow- 
ship, have  yet  always  been  content  to  affirm  that  the  com- 
municant partakes  of  Christ  in  a  purely  spiritual  sense ; 
while  the  Lutheran  church,  in  insisting  that  Christ's  body, 
though  not  actually  converted  into  the  bread  of  the 
Eucharist,  is   yet  "  in,  under,  or  with  "  the   bread,  still 

1  D'Aubigne,  iv.  pp.  101,  102. 

2  Id.  iv.  105  ;  Hase,  p.  380. 


I70  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

holds  a  belief  hardly  distinguishable  from  the  Roman 
doctrine  of  Transubstantiation. 

Zwingli  lived  but  little  while  after  this  dispute.  In  a 
battle  near  Zurich,  in  1531,  in  which  the  five  Forest  Can- 
tons (Catholic)  struck  a  fatal  blow  at  Protestant  supremacy 
in  Switzerland,  Zwingli  was  left  dead  upon  the  field ;  and 
the  career  of  this  most  interesting  of  the  Reformers  was 
thus  brought  to  an  abrupt  close.1  Although  he  had  not 
lived  long  enough  to  determine  the  direction  of  Swiss 
Protestantism,  yet  his  connection  with  it  lent  it  an  element 
of  intellectual  freedom  which  it  never  wholly  lost,  and 
which  was  just  enough  to  save  the  whole  movement  from 
the  charge  of  narrow  dogmatism.  After  his  death  the 
Swiss  Reformation  took  a  new  form. 

In  1 541,  John  Calvin,  a  French  theologian  who  had 
fled  from  Paris  in  1533,  and  taken  refuge  in  Basle,  was 
called  to  Geneva  to  assume  direction  of  a  combined  social 
and  religious  reform  which  was  already  in  progress  there, 
but  which  others  had  failed  to  control.  Once  before,  in 
1536,  Calvin  had  been  in  Geneva  for  a  similar  purpose; 
but  his  severity  was  so  great,  that  he  had  been  driven 
from  the  place.  Now  he  returned,  somewhat  reluctantly, 
indeed,  as  his  letters  show,2  yet  resolved  upon  carrying 
out  his  reforms  relentlessly,  and  proceeded  at  once  to  turn 
the  little  republic  into  a  theocracy,  with  himself  as  its  su- 
preme head.  Stern  and  austere  by  temperament,  averse 
to  pleasure  himself,  and  seeing  in  the  harmless  gayety  of 

1  Hase,  p.  388. 

2  Bonnet's  Letters  of  J.  Calvin,  i.  48,  51,  155,  163. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN    HERESIES.  171 

others  the  tokens  of  man's  absolute  depravity,  he  suc- 
ceeded in  establishing  in  Geneva  the  most  rigid  moral 
despotism  to  which  any  community  in  modern,  or, 
perhaps,  in  ancient  times  ever  submitted.  Through  a 
College  of  Pastors  and  Consistorial  Court  of  Discipline, 
he  sought  to  bring  even  the  most  private  life  of  the 
citizens  directly  under  theocratic  rule.  He  forbade  all 
amusements,  dances,  and  noisy  games  as  "  unworthy  of 
the  gravity  of  a  Christian."  Even  ordinary  conversation 
is  said  to  have  been  subjected  to  censorship.  He  re- 
quired every  person  to  abjure  the  Catholic  faith.  He 
established  a  system  of  domiciliary  visits  by  which  once 
a  year  the  faith  and  manners  of  every  inhabitant  were 
discovered,  and  the  ignorant  or  perverse  separated  from 
the  company  of  the  righteous.1 

This  same  inflexible  spirit,  and  the  same  austere  and 
uncompromising  temper,  Calvin  carried  with  him  into  his 
theology,  where  they  gained  for  him  even  greater  power. 
Indeed,  these  proved  to  be  precisely  the  traits  of  mind 
suited  to  times  of  theological  transition  when  new  doc- 
trines were  needed,  and  when  great  superiority  of  nature 
or  fineness  of  soul  was  of  less  account  than  strong  con- 
viction and  a  relentless  will.  "  Calvin  was  one  of  those 
absolute  men,"  says  one  of  his  recent  critics,  "cast  com- 
plete in  one  mould,  who  is  taken  in  wholly  at  a  single 
glance ;  one  letter,  one  action,  suffices  for  a  judgment  of 
him.     There  were  no  folds  in  that  inflexible  soul,  which 

1  Comp.  Martin's  Hist,  de  France,  viii.  323 ;  Guizot's  Calvin ; 
Letters,  i.  292;  ii.  38,  272;  Darras,  iv.  128. 


172  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

never  knew  doubt  or  hesitation.  .  .  .  Truth  is  completely 
involved  in  nice  distinctions.  Now,  the  man  who  would 
exert  a  powerful  influence  on  the  world  must  not  regard 
nice  distinctions  ;  he  must  believe  that  he  alone  is  wholly 
right,  and  that  they  who  differ  from  him  are  wholly 
wrong."  1 

This  single  trait  of  seeing  his  own  thought  so  clearly 
that  he  could  see  no  truth  beside,  Calvin  possessed  in 
preeminent  degree;  and  he  succeeded,  as  the  world 
knows,  in  stamping  it  almost  inenaceably  upon  Protestant 
theology.  In  his  "  Institutes  of  the  Christian  Religion," 
written  in  1535,  when  he  was  twenty-six  years  old,  he  laid 
out  the  whole  ground  of  Christian  theology,  with  a  minute- 
ness of  detail,  a  clearness  and  precision  of  statement,  and 
a  calm  assumption  of  divine  knowledge,  which  left  nothing 
further  to  be  said,  and  which  reduced  Protestantism  at 
once  to  a  finished  dogmatic  system.  It  should  be  added, 
that  by  employing  the  French  language  instead  of  Latin 
for  this  purpose,  and  thus  revealing  for  the  first  time  the 
qualities  of  lucid  and  exact  statement  inherent  in  that 
language,  Calvin  did  for  his  own  tongue  very  much  what 
Luther,  by  his  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  had  done  for 
German  literature.  In  Calvin's  hands  the  French  lan- 
guage became,  as  the  historian  Martin  expresses  it,  "  the 
mother  of  the  grand  prose  of  the  seventeenth  century."  2 

It  would  be  quite  superfluous  to  define  Calvinism  to  a 
New  England  audience.     It  is  enough  to  say,  that  Calvin, 

1  Renan's  Studies  of  Relig.  Hist,  and  Criticism,  p.  286. 

2  Martin's  Hist.  viii.  186;  Guizot,  176. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 73 

like  Luther,  turned  to  the  Augustinian  doctrines  for  his 
interpretation  of  Christianity;  but  went  as  far  beyond 
Luther,  in  the  paths  of  Predestination  and  Irresistible 
Grace,  as  Luther  had  gone  beyond  Romanism.  While 
Luther  and  the  Fathers  had  gone  but  half-way  in  their 
application  of  those  doctrines,  Calvin  dared  to  follow  his 
premises  to  the  end.  Luther  claimed  to  believe  unequivo- 
cally in  predestination,  yet  faltered,  as  all  since  Augustine 
had  done  before  him,  when  it  came  to  the  question  of 
eternal  woe  as  well  as  of  eternal  happiness ;  but  Calvin 
insisted  as  stoutly  on  predestination  to  hell  as  on  predes- 
tination to  heaven.  All  the  Fathers  but  Augustine,  Calvin 
declares,  had  explained  away  original  sin  as  applying  to 
the  animal  nature  only,  and  not  to  the  spiritual  or  ra- 
tional ;  Calvin  claims  that  man  is  absolutely  corrupt,  body 
and  soul.  He  is  "  shapen  in  iniquity."  "  Before  we  be- 
hold the  light  of  the  sun,  we  are  in  God's  sight  defiled 
and  polluted."  Again,  all  but  Augustine  had  tried,  while 
admitting  God's  foreknowledge,  to  save  under  some  form 
the  freedom  of  the  human  will;  Calvin  maintains  God's 
absolute  decrees,  whether  anything  be  left  of  the  human 
will  or  not.  "  God  ■  not  only  foresaw  the  fall  of  the  first 
man,  and  the  consequent  ruin  of  his  posterity,  he  willed 
it,  too."  "  God,  in  saving  some  and  condemning  others, 
has  no  regard  to  their  merits  or  good  works,"  but  only  to 
"  his  good  pleasure."  "  Sin  is  a  necessity,  yet  we  must 
bear  the  consequence  of  it ;  it  is  involuntary,  yet  we  can- 
not escape  it."1 

1  Calvin's  Institutes,  B.  ii.  292,  304 ;  B.  iii.  22. 


174  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY. 

To  show  how  the  Calvinistic  system  strikes  the  Catholic 
mind,  I  will  add  this  quotation  from  the  Catholic  histo- 
rian, Darras  :  "  The  predominant  characteristic  of  Calvin's 
system  is  the  doctrine  of  absolute  predestination,  carried 
out  with  a  fanatical  rigor  even  to  absurd  consequences 
According  to  Calvin,  God,  the  primordial  author  of  good 
and  evil,  has  from  all  eternity  cast  off  a  portion  of  his 
creatures,  and  doomed  them  to  eternal  punishment,  in 
order  to  show  his  justice  in  them.  God  caused  the  first 
man  to  fall  by  sin,  and  involved  the  whole  of  Adam's  pos- 
terity in  the  revolt.  The  divine  will  incites  to  the  commis- 
sion of  crime  those  whom  it  has  predestined  to  eternal  loss. 
Free-will  is  no  more.  The  tyranny  of  a  God  who  punishes 
sins  of  which  he  is  the  final  author,  did  not  terrify  Calvin. 
He  openly  professed  his  belief.  '  Among  men,'  said  he, 
i  some  are  created  for  eternal  life,  others  for  eternal  death.' 
Man  is  saved,  just  as  he  is  lost,  in  spite  of  himself.  There 
is  no  more  merit  in  being  a  saint  than  in  being  a  repro- 
bate." l  Romanism  finds  little  to  recognize,  it  seems,  and 
less"  to  admire,  in  the  pure  Augustinian  faith. 

In  regard  to  the  important  point  of  controversy  which, 
before  his  coming  among  them,  had  divided  the  German 
and  Swiss  reformers,  Calvin  occupied  a  middle  ground. 
With  Luther  he  agreed  that  Christ  is  really,  though  not 
locally,  present  in  the  elements  ;  with  Zwingli,  he  declared 
that  it  is  not  the  flesh  of  Jesus  which  the  communicant 
receives,  but  his  substance  and  power.  When  Christ 
says,  "This  is  my  body,"  both  Calvin  and  Zwingli  under- 
1  Darras,  iv.  125. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 75 

stand  the  words  to  mean,  "This  signifies ; "  yet  are  the 
elements  not  symbols  only,  according  to  Calvin,  but  actual 
instrumentalities  through  which  Christ  elevates  the  be- 
liever.1 But  Calvin's  position  brought  the  two  parties  no 
nearer  together.  The  mutual  distrust  was  too  great  for 
any  subtleties  of  definition  to  remove.  The  Lutherans 
were  determined  to  see  in  Calvin  only  a  second  Zwingli ; 
and  succeeded  so  well  in  identifying  the  two,  that  the 
German  churches  which  sympathized  with  trie  Swiss  doc- 
trines were  forced,  at  about  the  time  of  Calvin's  death,  to 
organize  themselves  as  the  German  Reformed  Church. 
The  Heidelberg  Catechism,  published  in  1563,  marks  the 
foundation  of  the  new  sect ;  and  to  this  day,  the  Calvin- 
istic  church  in  Germany  claims  for  itself,  as  against  the 
Lutheran,  the  specific  title  of  Reformed. 

No  account  of  Calvin,  or  of  the  faith  which  he  intro- 
duced, would  be  complete  without  some  allusion  to  his 
dealings  with  those  whom  he  chose  to  consider  heretics. 
Assuming  for  himself,  as  we  have  seen,  the  infallible  judg- 
ment which  he  had  denied  to  the  church  and  the  pope, 
he  was  quite  consistent  in  pronouncing  all  other  doctrines 
heresy,  and  in  following  them  with  a  persecution  as  relent- 
less as  that  with  which  Romanism  had  pursued  its  most 
dangerous  foes.  For  some  strange  reason,  the  treatment 
of  Servetus  has  always  been  singled  out  as  an  isolated 
event  in  Calvin's  career,  and  the  one  solitary  blot  upon 
his  fame.  Nothing  could  be  more  erroneous.  It  was 
not  an  isolated  event,  nor  would  Calvin  himself  have  con- 
1  Hase,  p.  401  ;  St.  Liguori,  p.  298  ;  Dorner,  i.  407. 


176  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

fessed  that  it  was  a  blot  upon  his  character.  It  was  but 
one  of  many  acts  to  which  the  logic  of  his  position  carried 
him,  and  from  which  no  gentleness  of  spirit,  or  respect  for 
moral  heroism,  or  appreciation  of  the  truth  that  is  above 
all  human  surmises,  caused  him  to  shrink.  Galvin  made 
no  concealment  of  his  views  concerning  the  treatment  of 
heretics.  He  wrote  to  the  Regent  of  England  during  the 
minority  of  Edward  VI.,  "As  I  understand,  Sire,  you 
have  two  sorts  of  insurgents  against  the  King  and  the 
State  of  the  realm ;  .  .  .  The  whole  body  of  them  richly 
deserve  to  be  suppressed  by  the  sword  which  is  intrusted 
to  you,  seeing  that  they  defy  not  only  the  King,  but  God, 
who  has  seated  him  on  his  royal  throne,  and  has  commis- 
sioned you  to  protect  his  people  as  well  as  his  majesty." 
He  wrote  also  concerning  some  unknown  offender  :  "  Could 
I  have  had  my  way,  I  could  have  gladly  seen  him  rot  in  a 
ditch,  and  his  coming  delighted  me  as  much  as  if  he  had 
cleft  my  heart  with  a  dagger.  .  .  .  Had  he  not  got  away 
so  quickly,  it  would  not  have  been  my  fault  if  he  had 
escaped  the  flames."  When  we  add  to  these  words  the 
title  of  one  of  his  works,  "A  defence  of  the  orthodox 
faith,  ...  in  which  it  is  proved  that  heretics  may  right- 
fully be  coerced  by  the  sword,"  we  are  quite  prepared  for 
the  treatment  which  all  who  ventured  to  oppose  his  social 
or  religious  doctrines  were  wont  to  receive  at  his  hands.1 
Among  these,  the  best  known  are  Bolsec,  who  differed 
from  Calvin  on  the  question  of  predestination  and  free- 
will, and  was  therefore  banished  from  Geneva ;  Castellio, 
1  Comp.  Renan's  Studies,  Essay  on  John  Calvin. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 77 

a  learned  scholar,  whom  Calvin  at  first  warmly  befriended, 
but  afterward,  because  of  certain  views  concerning  the 
authenticity  of  Scripture  books,  not  only  drove  into  exile 
and  poverty,  but  charged  with  stealing  the  sticks  which 
he  was  obliged  to  gather  for  his  support;  Gruet,  who 
publicly  attacked  the  consistory,  and  was  tortured  and 
beheaded;  Gentilis,  who  "barely  escaped  the  scaffold 
for  a  time  by  retracting  his  opinions"  concerning  the 
Trinity.1 

The  case  of  Servetus,  therefore,  was  but  one  among 
many ;  a  little  more  bitter  and  relentless  than  the  rest,  but 
springing  from  the  same  motives  and  the  result  of  the 
same  principles.  Michael  Servetus  was  a  Spanish  theolo- 
gian and  philosopher  of  unusual  scientific  attainments, 
and  with  a  passionate  love  of  religious  study  which  led 
him  to  welcome  the  Reformation  as  an  opportunity  for 
cleansing  Christianity  of  all  its  corruptions,  and  restoring  its 
primitive  doctrines.  As  he  reckoned  among  the  corrup- 
tions of  Christianity,  however,  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  Trinity,  and  Infant  Baptism,  he  found  himself 
at  once  an  outcast,  both  from  the  Catholic  church  and 
from  the  ranks  of  the  Reformers,  and  an  especial  object 
of  enmity  to  Calvin,  whose  theology  Servetus  allowed 
himself  to  criticise  freely.  Against  such  a  heretic,  Calvin 
believed  that  no  measures  were  too  severe,  or  too  dishon- 
orable. Learning  that  Servetus,  in  1553,  was  in  retirement 
in  Vienne,  under  an  assumed  name,  he  stooped  to  the 

1  Lecky's  Rationalism,  ii.  53-56 ;  Renan's  Stud.  p.  291 ;  Guizot's 
Calvin,  p.  275. 

12 


178  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

device  of  warning  the  Catholic  authorities  against  his 
heresies,  and  forwarding  confidential  letters  which  Serve- 
tus had  written  him,  to  serve  as  evidence  to  convict  him 
before  a  Catholic  tribunal.  Servetus  was  arrested  and 
confronted  by  the  proof  of  his  guilt ;  and  had  he  not  es- 
caped from  prison,  Calvin  would  have  had  the  delight  of 
using  the  fires  of  the  Inquisition  to  burn  his  own  heretics. 
He  escaped  however,  though  to  meet  no  kinder  fate,  and 
fled  to  Switzerland,  with  the  purpose  of  going  to  Italy. 
At  Geneva  he  fell  into  the  hands  of  Calvin  himself,  who 
was  not  slow  in  availing  himself  of  the  opportunity  to 
crush  out  the  hated  heresy.  Before  Servetus  came  to 
Geneva,  Calvin  wrote  to  Farel,  *  Should  he  come  and  my 
authority  avail,  I  will  not  suffer  him  to  go  away  alive." 
He  brought  him  at  once  to  trial  on  three  charges  :  denial 
of  the  Trinity  J  denial  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ ;  panthe- 
ism. His  nominal  accuser  was  Calvin's  private  secretary, 
Nicolas  de  la  Fontaine ;  and  during  the  progress  of  the 
trial,  Calvin  wrote  again  to  Farel,  "  I  hope  that  the  pun- 
ishment will  be  death."  His  wish  was  fulfilled,  and  Ser- 
vetus was  sentenced  to  be  burned.  Never,  in  the  annals 
of  the  Inquisition,  was  the  death  of  a  heretic  surrounded 
by  more  horror,  or  attended  by  less  magnanimity  or  more 
vindictiveness  on  the  part  of  the  executioners.  The  pile 
was  erected  on  an  eminence  outside  the  city.  Servetus 
was  bound  to  the  stake  by  an  iron  chain,  with  a  heavy 
cord  around  his  neck,  the  fagots  were  of  green  oak- 
branches  with  the  leaves  still  on.  So  heart-rending  were 
his  cries,  as  the  slow  fires  crept  around  him,  that  the  by- 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 79 

standers  ran  for  dry  wood  to  cast  upon  the  flames  J  and 
after  a  half-hour  of  frightful  agony,  he  expired.1 

When  Huss,  upon  being  tied  to  the  stake,  cried  out, 
"  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  the  living  God,  have  mercy  on  me," 
a  Roman  Catholic  historian,  in  recording  the  event,  added, 
"  We  should  not  forget  that  the  devil  has  martyrs  and  in- 
fuses into  them  a  false  constancy." 2  When  Servetus,  in 
being  led  to  the  stake,  fell  upon  his  knees  in  prayer, 
crying,  "  O  God  !  O  God  !  "  Farel  shouted  to  the  crowd 
who  looked  on,  "See  what  power  Satan  has  when  he 
takes  possession  of  a  man.  This  man  is  learned,  but  he 
is  now  possessed  by  the  devil."  And  when  Servetus, 
even  at  the  stake,  cried,  "  Jesus  Christ,  Son  of  the  Eternal 
God,"  and  would  not  say,  "  eternal  Son  of  God,"  Calvin 
was  afterwards  moved  to  write,  "  When,  under  the  hands 
of  the  executioner,  he  refused  to  call  Jesus  Christ  the  eter- 
nal son  of  God,  who  will  say  that  that  was  a  martyr's 
death?"3 

From  these  revolting  scenes,  and  this  new  and  baser 
birth  of  papal  infallibility,  it  is  pleasant  to  turn  to  another 
movement  of  the  young  faith  in  another  land. 

The  Reformation  in  England  took  upon  itself,  as  might 
be  expected,  a  wholly  distinctive  character.  It  was  less  a 
sudden  outburst  of  new-born  religious  feeling,  or  a  protest 
against  papal  tyranny  or  corruption,  than  the  gradual  loos- 
ening of  ties  under  which  the  nation  had  long  been  chaf- 

1  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  Feb.  and  Mar.,  1848 ;  Darras,  iv.  128 ; 
St.  Liguori,  p.  302  ;  Hase,  p.  433. 

2  St.  Liguori,  p.  254.  3  Rev.  pp.  843,  844. 


l8o  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

ing,  and  the  final  renunciation  of  a  foreign  supremacy 
which  had  long  been  wearisome.  It  was  an  affair  of  state 
quite  as  much  as  of  church,  and  of  administration  rather 
than  of  theology.  At  first,  indeed,  England  showed  but 
little  interest  in  the  German  controversies,  and  little  taste 
for  them.  Henry  VIII.  made  himself  conspicuous  as  de- 
fender of  the  old  faith ;  and  in  his  new  pride  of  author- 
ship and  disgust  at  the  rude  blows  which  Luther  at  first 
dealt  him,  seemed  little  inclined  to  give  the  new  views  a 
hearing.  As  late  as  15  21,  four  Lincolnshire  peasants  had 
been  burned  to  death,  their  children  being  forced  to  light 
the  fagots,  for  reading  the  Gospels  and  denouncing  pil- 
grimages. As  late  as  1526,  all  copies  of  Tyndale's  trans- 
lation of  the  New  Testament  found  in  London  were 
burned,  as  containing  "infectious  poison."1  As  late  even 
as  1533,  Mr.  John  Frith,  an  "  excellent  scholar  of  the  Uni- 
ity  of  Cambridge,"  was  burned  in  Smithfield  for  denying 
the  real  presence.2  After  bringing  upon  himself  the  pa- 
pal ban,  however,  through  his  marriage  with  Anne  Boleyn, 
his  feelings  changed;  and  in  1534,  a  decree  of  Parlia- 
ment was  easily  passed  abrogating  the  papal  supremacy 
in  England,  and  constituting  the  king  "  the  only  supreme 
head  of  the  church."  8  This  simple  act,  however,  estab- 
lished neither  Protestantism  nor  the  Reformation.  A  pe- 
riod of  strange  confusion  followed,  in  which  the  people, 
too  ignorant  to  comprehend  the  new  theological  ideas  let 

1  D'Aubigne,  v.  214,  297.  2  Neal's  Hist,  of  Puritans,  i.  35. 

3  Hume's   Hist.    iv.  89;  Neal's    Hist,   of    Pur.   i.  32;   Hook's 
Lives  of  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  vii.  487-492. 


OTHER   TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  l8l 

loose  upon  them,  fluctuated  violently  between  the  two 
faiths ;  in  which  the  King  himself,  dreading  the  new  free- 
dom he  had  sanctioned,  tried  still  to  cling  to  "  the  pure 
Catholic  faith ;  "  and  in  which  followers  of  Luther  and  fol- 
lowers of  the  pope  were  frequently  executed  on  the  same 
gibbet.1  The  reign  of  Mary,  fortunately  short,  brought 
the  chief  leader  of  the  reformers,  Cranmer,  with  many 
humbler  adherents,  to  the  stake;2  nor  even  in  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth  was  it  possible  to  organize  the  national 
church,  but  by  mingling  in  the  new  formularies,  Catholic 
ceremonial  with  Protestant  theology.  In  15  71,  the  forty- 
two  Articles  of  Faith  first  proposed  by  Cranmer,  afterwards 
reduced  to  thirty-nine,  were  finally  sanctioned  by  Parlia- 
ment, and  subscriptions  to  them  made  obligatory  for  all 
the  clergy.3 

It  is  curious  to  note  the  various  compromises  which 
had  to  be  effected,  chiefly  under  Cranmer's  guidance, 
before  the  church  of  England  assumed  its  final  form. 
Many  of  the  earlier  reformers  evidently  wished  the  revolt 
from  Rome  to  be  as  complete  and  sweeping  in  England 
as  it  was  in  Germany  or  Switzerland.  Macaulay  gives 
a  long  list  of  bishops  of  Edward's  reign,  none  of  them 
belonging  to  the  Protestant  extremists,  who  were  as 
strongly  opposed  to  the  Romish  ritual  as  to  Romish  doc- 
trines. "  Bishop  Hooper,  who  died  manfully  at  Glouces- 
ter for  his  religion,  long  refused  to  wear  the  episcopal 
vestments.     Bishop  Ridley  .  .  .  pulled  down  the  ancient 

1  Hume,  iv.  94,  97  j  Hase,  p.  422.        2  1556. 
3  Hagenbach,  Hist,  of  Doc.  ii.  167. 


1 82  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

altars  of  his  diocese,  and  ordered  the  Eucharist  to  be 
administered  in  the  middle  of  churches,  at  tables  which  the 
papists  irreverently-termed  oyster-boards.  Bishop  Jewel 
pronounced  the  clerical  garb  to  be  a  stage  dress,  a  fool's 
coat,  and  promised  that  he  would  spare  no  labor  to 
extirpate  such  degrading  absurdities.  Archbishop  Grin- 
dal  long  hesitated  about  accepting  a  mitre,  from  dislike 
of  what  he  regarded  as  the  mummery  of  consecration. 
Bishop  Parkhurst  uttered  a  fervent  prayer  that  the  church 
of  England  would  propose  to  herself  the  church  of  Zurich 
as  the  absolute  pattern  of  a  Christian  community.  Bishop 
Ponet  was  of  opinion  that  the  word  bishop  should  be 
abandoned  to  the  papists,  and  that  the  chief  officers  of  the 
purified  church  should  be  called  superintendents.  Arch- 
bishop Cranmer  himself  plainly  avowed  his  conviction  that, 
in  the  primitive  times,  there  was  no  distinction  between 
bishops  and  priests,  and  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  was 
altogether  unnecessary."  r 

The  ritualistic  party  prevailed,  however;  and  in  1541, 
out  of  the  half-dozen  liturgical  forms  or  Uses  then  in 
vogue  in  England,  Cramner  selected  the  Use  of  Sarum,  or 
Salisbury,  on  which  to  base  the  ritual  of  the  new  church. 
The  only  changes  on  which  Cramner  seems  to  have  ven- 
tured at  first  were,  to  purge  the  Catholic  service  of  its 
"  popish  legends,"  to  order  the  Psalter  to  be  printed  in  Eng- 
lish as  well  as  in  Latin,  and  to  determine  upon  and  translate 
a  uniform  Litany  for  all  the  churches.  The  Litany  now 
in  use  in  the  English  church,  with  the  exception  of  certain 
1  Macaulay's  Hist,  of  England,  vol.  i.  ch.  1. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN    HERESIES.  1 83 

supplications  to  the  Virgin  and  to  angels  and  archangels, 
which  were  omitted  in  later  revisions,  is  essentially  the 
work  of  Cranmer's  hands.1 

In  1548,  the  first  year  of  Edward's  reign,  an  entire 
Liturgy  was  prepared  in  English,  and  the  Book  of  Com- 
mon Prayer  appeared,  followed  immediately  by  an  Act  of 
Uniformity,  by  which  it  was  "  enacted  that  all  and  singular 
ministers  shall  be  bounden  to  say  and  use  the  mattens,  even- 
song, and  mass  in  such  order  and  form  as  is  mentioned  in 
the  same  book  and  none  other  or  otherwise."2  In  1552, 
so  great  was  the  outcry  against  this  service  that  the  Second 
Book  of  Edward  VI.  appeared,  in  which  prayer  for  the  dead 
and  the  festival  of  St.  Mary  Magdalene  were  omitted,  the 
terms  Mass  and  Altar  were  finally  supplanted  (or  intended 
to  be)  by  Communion  and  Lord's  Table,  and  the  various 
forms  of  exorcism  which  the  ancient  liturgies  had  retained 
were  reduced  to  the  modest  acts,  still  preserved  in  the  Eng- 
lish church,  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism,  and  the 
consecration  of  the  Bread  and  Cup  at  the  Lord's  Supper.8 
This  Second  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  further  revised  under 
Elizabeth,  and  again  under  James  I.  and  Charles  II.,  is 
essentially  the  same  as  that  now  in  use  in  England  and 
America. 

Having  thus  looked  to  Rome  for  its  ritual,  the 
church  of  England  turned  to  Protestantism  for  its  doc- 
trines.    The   forty-two   Articles   which   first   formed   the 

1  Hook,  vii.  143,  204,  265  ;  Stanley's  Chris.  Institutions,  p.  262. 

2  Hook,  vii.  275. 

3  Hook,  vii. ;  Blunt's  Annotations  of  Book  of  Common  Prayer; 
Proctor's  Hist,  of  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 


1 84  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Anglican  creed  were  apparently  of  German  descent,  so  close 
a  resemblance  do  they  bear  to  a  formulary  of  the  Archbishop 
of  Cologne  known  to  have  been  in  Cranmer's  possession, 
which  was  itself  based  upon  the  Augsburg  Confession.1 
Even  in  their  later  form,  indeed,  traces  of  the  sacramental 
controversy  which  separated  the  Swiss  and  German 
churches  plainly  appear,  and  show  a  laudable  purpose  on  the 
part  of  the  English  church  to  satisfy,  if  possible,  both  the 
accepters  and  the  rejecters  of  the  Real  Presence.  While 
the  Catechism  meets  the  needs  of  the  stoutest  Lutheran 
or  even  Catholic,  in  the  words,  "  The  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  which  are  verily  and  indeed 2  taken  and  received 
by  the  faithful,"  the  twenty-eighth  Article  satisfies  the 
best  Calvinist  by  declaring,  "  The  Body  of  Christ  is  given, 
taken,  and  eaten,  in  the  Supper,  only  after  a  heavenly 
and  spiritual  manner ;  "  and  the  Communion  Service  says, 
"  Take  and  eat  this  in  remembrance  that  Christ  died  for 
thee,  and  feed  on  him  in  thy  heart  by  faith."  . 

Indeed,  the  theology  of  the  church  of  England  has 
always  been  a  little  hard  to  fix.  In  the  thirty-nine  Articles, 
the  doctrines  of  Original  Sin,  Predestination,  Election, 
Justification  by  Faith,  the  Powerlessness  of  Good  Works, 
all  stand  in  apparently  their  most  uncompromising  form  j 
yet  how  much  these  articles  mean  seems  to  have  been 
a  question  in  every  period  of  the  history  of  the  church. 
As  late  as  1578,  Calvin's  Catechism  was  in  use  at  the  Uni- 
versity of  Cambridge.  Yet  in  1 7  74,  it  seemed  to  be  already 

1  Hook,  vii.  289. 

2 Changed  in  the  American  Prayer  Book  to  "spiritually." 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  I  §5 

in  doubt  within  the  church  itself  whether  its  faith  was 
Calvinistic  or  not;  as  in  that  year  a  work  by  Toplady 
appeared,  entitled  "  Historic  Proof  of  Doctrinal  Calvinism 
of  the  Church  of  England,"  together  with  a  reply  by  Arch- 
bishop Danbury  and  by  Dean  Kepling,  styled  "  The 
Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  proved  to  be  not 
Calvinistic."  At  the  beginning  of  this  century,  the  doubt 
still  continued;  as  Bishop  Tomline  published  in  181 1  a 
"Refutation  of  Calvinism,"  while  in  1844,  Dr.  Laurence, 
Professor  at  Oxford,  gave  in  a  Bampton  lecture,  "An 
Attempt  to  illustrate  those  Articles  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land improperly  considered  Calvinistic."  '  It  can  safely 
be  said  that,  were  the  writings  of  the  principal  English 
theologians  of  the  last  three  centuries  to  be  compared, 
they  would  present  as  wide  a  range  of  theological  opinion, 
and  as  vast  a  diversity  of  dogmatic  belief,  as  we  have 
already  found  in  the  church  Fathers,  the  Justins  and 
Clements  and  Tertullians,  the  Cyprians,  Irenseuses,  and 
Origens,  of  the  first  three  centuries  of  the  Christian 
church. 

Still  more  significant  have  been  certain  judgments  of 
the  church  itself  within  the  last  few  years.  As  the 
Roman  church  speaks  through  its  councils,  so  the  Eng- 
lish church  speaks  through  the  Queen's  Privy  Council. 
Twice  within  the  present  generation,  the  Privy  Council 
has  had  to  speak  upon  questions  of  the  gravest  dog- 
matic interest,  brought  up  for  final  decision-  from  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  below.  In  1850  or  1851.  the  case 
1  Hagen.  ii.  183,  184. 

>v   0?  THE        ^ 


tfUHITERSITT, 


1 86  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

of  the  Rev.  Cornelius  Gorham  was  brought  before  it, 
whom  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  had  refused  to  institute  to 
a  vicarage,  on  the  ground  that  he  denied  that  regener- 
ation is  given  or  conferred  in  the  sacrament  of  Baptism, 
notwithstanding  the  Catechism  teaches  that  doctrine. 
The  court,  without  passing  upon  the  correctness  of  Mr. 
Gorham's  views,  decided  that,  however  it  might  be  with 
the  Catechism  or  the  Baptismal  Service,  those  views  did 
not  contradict  the  Articles,  and  had  in  fact  been  held 
without  censure  by  many  eminent  prelates  and  divines.1 
In  other  words,  the  sacramental  efficacy  of  baptism,  an 
important  doctrine  of  the  Lutheran  as  well  as  the  Cath- 
olic church,  is  left  an  open  question  by  the  church  of 
England. 

In  1864,  tne  stm  more  noted  case  of  the  "Essays 
and  Reviews  "  was  brought  before  the  Privy  Council,  in 
which  two  writers,  holding  positions  in  the  church,  were 
charged  with  heretical  opinions  concerning  the  Inspira- 
tion of  the  Scriptures,  Eternal  Punishment,  and  the 
"Merits  of  Christ."  The  court  decided  that  although 
these  writers  held  rationalistic  views  on  these  points, 
from  which  the  court  itself  dissented,  yet  the  language 
of  the  Articles  was  not  so  explicit,  nor  the  opinions  of 
church  theologians  so  uniform,  on  either  of  the  points, 
that  the  doctrines  in  question  could  be  pronounced 
heretical.  Every  charge  against  the  writers  was  there- 
fore dismissed.  In  other  words,  the  special  Inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures,  Eternal  Punishment,  and  the  Imputa- 
1  See  Chamb.  Encyc,  art.  Gorham. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 87 

tion  of  the  "Merits  of  Christ,"  are  open  questions  in 
the  English  church.1  "As  the  Gorham  judgment,"  said 
Dean  Stanley  at  the  time,  "  established  the  legal  position 
of  the  Puritan  or  Evangelical  party  in  the  church  of 
England,  so  the  present  judgment  establishes  the  legal 
position  of  those  who  have  always  claimed  the  right  of 
free  inquiry  and  latitude  of  opinion."2 

The  great  diversity  of  opinion  sheltered  by  the  Eng- 
lish church  is  a  fact  almost  universally  recognized,  and 
viewed  with  sorrow  or  pride  according  to  the  position 
of  the  individual.  Said  a  writer  in  the  London  Times, 
not  long  ago  :  U  This  church  possesses  every  attribute, 
every  advantage,  and  every  disadvantage,  of  a  compro- 
mise. Her  articles  and  authorized  formularies  are  so 
drawn  as  to  admit  within  her  pale,  persons  differing  as 
widely  as  it  is  possible  for  the  professors  of  Christian 
religion  to  differ  from  each  other.  Unity  was  neither 
sought  nor  obtained,  but  comprehension  was  aimed  at 
and  accomplished."3  Lord  Chatham  said  that  in  his 
time  "the  English  church  had  Calvinistic  Articles,  a 
Papistic  Service,  and  an  Arminian  clergy."4  "The 
other  Protestant  churches,"  says  Dollinger,  "possess,  in 
Symbolic  Books,  at  least  the  possibility  of  unity  of  doc- 
trine ;  but  the  English  church  has  the  germ  of  discord 
and    ecclesiastical   dissolution   in   its    normal    condition, 

1  Edin.  Review,  July,  1864  5  article  by  Dean  Stanley  on  "  The 
Three  Pastorals." 

2  Same  article,  p.  140. 

8  Quoted  by  Dollinger;  Church  and  Churches,  p.  157. 
4  Dollinger's  Church  and  Churches,  p.  169. 


1 88  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

and  in  its  confession  of  faith.  It  is  a  collection  of  het- 
erogeneous theological  propositions,  tied  together  by 
the  Act  of  Uniformity,  but  which  in  a  logical  mind  can- 
not exist  by  the  side  of  one  another."1  Merle  D'Au- 
bign£,  the  Swiss  historian  of  the  Reformation,  takes  a 
very  gloomy  view  of  this  peculiarity  of  English  Protes- 
tantism, and  says  reproachfully,  in  reference  to  the 
Essays  and  Reviews  trial,  "We  venture  to  ask  whether 
this  judgment  be  not  subversive  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  Anglican  church?"2  An  able  Amer- 
ican writer,  in  an  article  upon  a  late  general  convention 
of  the  American  Episcopal  Church,  takes  quite  a  dif- 
ferent view.  "Dogmatic  theology,"  he  says,  "is  a  sub- 
ordinate interest  in  the  constitution  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  whilst  among  all  other  churches  it  is  the  con- 
trolling interest."  "The  dominant  idea,  next  to  the 
purpose  of  religious  reform,  was  institutional  and  his- 
torical, not  dogmatic."  The  same  writer  enumerates 
"seven  distinct  types  of  doctrine,  or  tendencies  ob- 
servable within  the  church,"  and  adds  this  fine  con- 
ception of  the  "true  law  of  the  being  of  the  Episcopal 
church."  "The  church  is  broader  and  better  than  the 
men  who  control  it.  It  cannot,  without  the  destruction 
of  its  fundamental  law,  be  made  the  expression  or  em- 
bodiment of  a  party.  It  covers  essential  Christianity. 
It  knows  no  theories  of  Christianity.  It  seeks  to  give 
utterance  to  the  needs  of  the  universal  heart,  to  be  the 
communion  and  fellowship  of  all  faithful  men,  allowing 
1  Dollinger,  p.  106.  2  D'Aubigne's  Hist.,  Preface,  iv. 


OTHER  TRINITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 89 

all  freedom,  within  the  limits  of  the  faith,  for  the  exist- 
ence, the  culture,  the  development  of  Christian  thinking 
and  feeling  and  living."1 

This  is  admirable  language ;  yet  it  is  idle  to  claim 
that  the  lofty  ideal  which  it  suggests  has  yet  been  real- 
ized in  the  actual  English  church  of  any  age.  Indeed, 
this  very  token  of  its  excellence,  this  superb  tolerance 
of  conflicting  views,  which  is  here  claimed  as  the  char- 
acteristic of  Episcopacy,  is  to-day  vexing  the  souls  and 
stirring  the  deep  indignation  of  hosts  of  its  prominent 
members.  Nor  does  it  seem  clear  to  one  who  looks 
from  the  outside,  why,  if  the  Articles  are  to  be  so  gen- 
erously construed  as  to  admit  all  possible  interpretations 
of  them,  it  would  not  be  better  to  substitute  for  them 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  themselves,  which  have  the 
great  advantage  of  being  neither  Lutheran  nor  Calvin- 
istic,  but  eminently  Christian.  If  the  Scriptures  contain 
these  so-called  Christian  doctrines  of  Trinity,  Atonement, 
and  Election,  then  to  accept  the  Scriptures  is  to  accept 
them :  if  the  Scriptures  do  not  contain  them,  why  should 
Christians  accept  them? 

For  one,  however,  I  am  willing  to  judge  the  Episcopal 
church  by  the  estimate  placed  upon  it  by  the  nobler 
minds  of  its  communion,  and  to  look  forward,  with  its 
friends,  to  the  time  when  it  shall  justify  their  generous 
hopes,  and  hold  within  its  borders,  with  no  jealous  scru- 
tiny or  reproachful  glance,  the  honest  strivers  after  truth 
of  every  type  and  faith.  I  am  willing  to  give  it  full 
1  Old  and  New,  iv.  460,  463,  469. 


I90  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

credit   for  even   having    dreamed    of  embracing    many 
beliefs  in  one  ecclesiastical  communion. 

If  that  hour  shall  ever  come,  if  either  English  Episco- 
pacy, or  any  other  Christian  body,  shall  sometime  con- 
sent to  leave  entirely  to  Romanism  the  fixing  of  dogmatic 
Orthodoxy,  and  shall  content  itself  with  offering  to  its 
followers  a  hospitable  religious  home,  in  whose  sacred 
quiet,  far  above  the  noises  and  envies  of  the  sects,  they 
may  all  pursue,  under  highest  influences,  and  by  paths 
of  their  own,  the  divine  truth  which  invites  their  search, 
mind  encountering  mind  in  friendly  difference,  then,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  the  ideal  Protestant  church  will  be 
formed.  For  it  will  be  a  church  based  not  on  belief, 
but  on  spiritual  life. 

March  29,  1874. 


IX. 

UNITARIAN    HERESIES. 

/T^FIE  leading  sects  of  the  Reformers,  as  we  have 
■*■  seen,  while  renouncing  the  authority  of  the  church, 
and  the  supremacy  of  the  pope,  chose  to  retain  many 
of  the  church  doctrines.  Lutherans,  Calvinists,  and 
Anglicans,  differing  widely  on  lesser  points,  agreed  in 
preserving  the  decrees  of  ancient  councils  concerning 
the  Trinity,  Incarnation,  Original  Sin,  with  the  whole 
dogmatic  system  of  which  these  are  a  part. 

This  was  a  purely  arbitrary  decision,  of  course.  When 
the  church  was  cast  off,  all  its  councils  and  confessions 
went  with  it  as  parts  of  itself;  and  if  any  dogmas  were 
retained,  it  could  only  be  on  the  ground  of  individual 
preference.  The  Protestant  sects  had  a  perfect  right, 
if  they  chose,  to  reject  papal  supremacy,  and  retain  the 
Trinity;  but,  inasmuch  as  both  these  doctrines  could 
claim  precisely  the  same  sanction,  while  one  had  no 
more  scriptural  basis  than  the  other,  this  discrimination 
could  be  made  only  as  an  exercise  of  the  spiritual  free- 
dom which  Protestantism  had  secured.  It  was  an  act 
of  reason  against  authority.  In  other  words,  Protest- 
antism   being   in  its  very  essence   rationalism,  authority 


192  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

in  matters  of  doctrine  disappeared  with  the  Reformation, 
and  individual  reformers  or  churches  were  at  liberty  to 
accept  or  reject  any  of  the  past  beliefs  of  Christendom 
at  will.  In  its  nobler  moods,  Protestantism  was  quite 
ready  to  take  this  lofty  ground,  and  had  many  fine 
things  to  say  about  the  right  of  private  interpretation 
and  the  spiritual  equality  of  all  Christian  believers.  When 
the  time  came  for  forming  its  creed,  however,  it  forgot 
all  this,  accepted  its  fundamental  dogmas  upon  the  direct 
authority  of  the  early  councils  of  the  church,  and  an- 
nounced its  belief  in  advance  for  all  its  followers. 

We  cannot  be  surprised,  however,  if  there  were  some 
among'  the  early  reformers  to  whom  the  first  three  coun- 
cils seemed  no  more  binding  than  the  last;  and  who 
were  inclined  to  exercise  freely  the  new  right  of  private 
judgment.  If  the  followers  of  Luther  and  Calvin  dis- 
carded Trent,  it  was  entirely  natural,  and  should  have 
excited  neither  surprise  nor  resentment,  that  others  should, 
by  the  same  right,  discard  Nicaea.  As  a  simple  matter 
of  fact,  such  Protestants  there  were  from  the  very  begin- 
ning ;  and  the  Reformation  had  no  sooner  gained  a  solid 
footing,  than  every  one  of  the  dogmas  which  had  been 
established  at  such  pains  in  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, found  itself  openly  challenged,  and  forced  to  prove 
its  right  to  exist.  As  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  still, 
as  of  old,  constituted  the  chief  dividing  line  between 
these  two  schools,  and  as  I  have  already  grouped  the 
one  under  the  head  of  Trinitarian  Heresies,  I  propose 
to  class  the  others  to-night  under  the  general  name  of 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 93 

Unitarian  Heresies,  and  to  trace  the  descent  of  Unitari- 
anism  from  the  time  of  the  Reformation. 

Unitarian  ism  accompanied  Protestantism,  as  it  had 
accompanied  early  Christianity,  from  its  cradle.  The  last 
three  centuries  have  been  as  full  of  this  heresy  as  were 
the  first  three.  Before  Luther's  death,  Unitarianism  had 
appeared  in  Italy,  in  Hungary,  in  Poland,  in  Spain,  in 
Germany,  in  England.  We  find  the  Trinity  on  the  de- 
fensive in  every  Protestant  confession.  It  received  special 
notice  and  vindication  in  the  first  theological  statement  of 
the  Reformation,  Melanchthon's  "  Loci-Communes."  The 
Augsburg  Confession,  in  its  first  article,  condemns  the 
"  modern  Samosatans,"  who  "  deny  the  personality  of  the 
Word  and  the  Spirit." 1  Calvin  devotes  one  of  the  longest 
chapters  of  his  "  Institutes,"  consisting  of  twenty-nine 
sections,  to  the  "  Unity  of  the  Divine  Essence  in  three 
Persons,  taught  in  Scripture  from  the  foundation  of  the 
world."2  The  opponents  of  this  doctrine  he  styles 
"Arians,"  "Sabellians,"  "Prattlers;"  and  declares  that 
"  Satan  has  provoked  fierce  disputes  concerning  the 
divine  essence  of  the  Son  and  the  Spirit,"  and  is  "try- 
ing in  the  present  day  to  kindle  new  flame  out  of  the  old 
embers." 3  In  1533,  Melanchthon  wrote  to  a  friend, ft  You 
know  that  in  reference  to  the  Trinity,  I  have  always  feared 
that  these  things  would  again  break  out.  Good  God  ! 
what  disturbances  will  be  raised  in  the  next  age,  whether 
the  Logos  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  hypostases  [persons] . 

1  Confessio  Augustana,  art.  i.  "  Damnantet  Samosatenos  veteres 
et  neotericos." 

2  Calvin's  Institutes,  i.  xiii.  3  Id.  §§  21,  22,  23. 

13 


194  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

I  abide  by  those  words  of  Holy  Writ,  which  direct  to 
pray  to  Christ,  and  attribute  to  him  divine  honors  j  but 
I  do  not  feel  compelled  to  examine  more  accurately  the 
assertions  respecting  hypostases."1 

Many  open  opponents  of  the  Trinity  are  mentioned  by 
the  historians  of  this  period,  besides  the  few  who  are 
familiarly  known.  Of  those  whose  names  alone  can  be 
given,  were  John  Campanus  of  Wittenberg,  who,  after  a 
careful  study  of  the  opinions  of  the  Fathers  concerning 
the  Trinity,  taught  that  the  Son  was  born  before  the  crea- 
tion, but  was  a  subordinate  hypostasis  to  the  Father,  and 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  a  person,  but  simply  the 
divine  Essence;  George  Wicel,  who  also  declared  the 
ancient  church  doctrine  anti-Trinitarian ;  Valentine  Gen- 
tilis,  whose  doctrine  was  that  there  were  three  "  divine 
essences,"  two  being  subordinate  to  the  third,  and  who 
preached  his  heresy  in  Switzerland,  Savoy,  France,  and 
Poland ; 2  Gonesius  and  Farnovius,  who  carried  anti-Trini- 
tarianism  into  Poland ;  Louis  Hetzer,  who  "  denied 
every  distinction  in  the  Trinity ; " 3  Claudius  of  Savoy, 
who  taught  that  Christ  was  called  God,  "inasmuch  as 
he  had  received  the  fulness  of  the  divine  Spirit  beyond 
all  other  beings  ;  "  and  George  Blandrata,  an  Italian  phy- 
sician, who  established  Unitarianism  in  Transylvania,  in 
1556,  and  who  is  charged  by  a  Catholic  historian  with 
having  made  Arianism  "the  most  numerous  sect  in 
Transylvania."4 

1  Neander's  Dogmas,  ii.  650.  21566.  3  1529. 

4  St.  Liguori,  Hist,  of  Heresies,  pp.  353,  354;  Neander's  Dog- 
mas, ii.  646-648;  Mosheim's  Institutes,  iii.  254. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 95 

The  fate  of  these  reformers  testifies  anew  to  a  fact, 
which  has  already  been  twice  noticed,  the  reluctance  of 
the  leading  heretics  of  the  Reformation  to  grant  to  others 
the  freedom  of  opinion  which  they  claimed  for  themselves. 
All  of  these  were  persecuted ;  two,  Gentilis  and  Hetzer, 
were  beheaded.  Indeed,  it  does  not  seem  to  have  oc- 
curred to  the  early  Protestants  that  true  religion  could 
possibly  be  propagated  except  by  violence.  They  not 
only  did  not  shrink  from  taking  the  lives  of  heretics,  they 
encouraged  and  warmly  applauded  both  torture  and  death. 
Luther,  Calvin,  Melanchthon,  Beza,  Knox,  with  all  their 
leading  followers,  claimed  the  weapons  of  persecution  as 
essential  to  the  safety  of  the  Christian  church.  The 
historian  Lecky  mentions  Zwingli  and  Socinus,  the  two 
rationalists,  as  the  only  exceptions  to  this  rule,  among  the 
early  reformers.1  Both  these  men,  to  the  great  indigna- 
tion of  their  fellow-reformers,  took  open  ground  against 
the  persecution  of  religious  opponents,  this  being  counted 
against  Socinus  as  a  greater  heresy,  if  possible,  than  his 
Unitarianism.  Jurieu,  an  eminent  French  minister  and 
writer  of  Rotterdam,  speaks  of  the  idea  of  universal 
toleration  as  "  that  Socinian  dogma,, the  most  dangerous 
of  all  held  by  the  Socinian  sect,  since  it  tends  to  ruin 
Christianity  and  establish  the  indifference  of  religions." 
He  goes  so  far  as  to  pronounce  persecution  (or  "  author- 
ity ")  "  the  means  always  employed  by  Providence  to 
establish  the  true  religion  and  overthrow  the  false."  2 

1  Lecky's  Rationalism  in  Europe,  ii.  51,  note. 

2  Quoted  by  Lecky,  ii.  52,  note. 


196  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Judged  simply  from  the  general  character  of  his  theol- 
ogy, Zwingli  certainly  deserves  the  title  of  rationalist; 
inasmuch  as  he  counted  original  sin  a  "  disease,"  carrying 
with  it  no  guilt,  considered  baptism  as  no  more  essential  to 
eternal  life  than  circumcision,  regarded  the  Lord's  Supper 
a  simple  commemoration  of  Christ's  death,  and  ventured 
the  startling  opinion,  in  a  letter  to  Francis  I.,  that  he 
would  probably  have  the  joy,  in  heaven,  of  meeting,  "  not 
only  the  first  and  second  Adam,  Abel,  Peter,  and  Paul, 
but  also  Hercules,  Theseus,  Socrates,  Aristides,  Numa, 
Cato,  and  the  Scipios." ■  As  he  did  not  happen,  however, 
to  come  to  any  break  with  the  Trinity,  I  must  pass  him 
by  to-night,  and  take  up  another  who,  both  for  his  melan- 
choly fate,  and  for  the  singular  interest  and  importance  of 
his  religious  thought,  deserves  the  first  place  among  anti- 
Trinitarian  reformers,  Michael  Servetus.  As  his  story  is 
less  familiar  than  it  should  be,  I  shall  make  no  apology  for 
dwelling  upon  it  at  some  length.2 

Michael  Servetus  was  born  in  Villanueva,  Arragon,  in 
1509,  the  year  of  Calvin's  birth,  and  first  heard  of  the 
new  religious  doctrines  when  studying  law  at  Toulouse. 
Leaving  his  profession  at  once,  he  sought  out  the  reform- 
ers, first  at  Basle,  where  he  met  yEcolampadius,  then  at 

1  Gieseler's  Church  History,  iv.  403,  n.,  406,  n. ;  St.  Liguon, 
p.  293. 

2  See  article  in  the  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  February  and 
March,  1848,  by  fimile  Saisset.  The  writer  had  in  his  hands, 
while  writing,  the  copy  of  Servetus's  chief  work,  which  had  been 
used  by  his  accusers  in  the  trial,  and  which  bore  marks  of  the 
flames  from  which  it  had  been  snatched. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  1 97 

Strasburg,  where  he  found  Bucer  and  Capito,  then  at  Paris, 
where  he  met  Calvin.  To  his  surprise,  however,  his  ardent 
reception  of  the  new  ideas,  and  eagerness  to  follow  them 
to  their  last  conclusions,  met  with  a  cold  response  from 
these  theologians;  while  his  passionate  search  into  the 
great  truths  of  Christianity  thus  newly  opened  seemed 
to  them  but  idle  and  restless  curiosity.  Even  Zwingli 
denounced  him  as  "  that  wicked  and  cursed  Spaniard  ;  " 
while  Calvin  hastened  to  speak  of  him  as  that  "  frantic  " 
Servetus,  "who  has  thrown  all  things  into  confusion."  1 

This  hostility  is  easily  explained.  Servetus  was  the  only 
one  among  these  reformers  who  entered  upon  the  Protest- 
ant movement,  as  a  scholar  rather  than  as  a  theologian ; 
in  the  interest,  not  of  the  church,  but  of  philosophic 
and  religious  thought.  A  reformation  which  rested  in 
the  formation  of  new  sects,  and  the  recoining  of  old 
doctrines,  seemed  to  him  to  stop  half-way;  and  he  ex- 
asperated his  companions  by  planning  "  a  rejuvenated 
Christianity,  reconstructed  from  base  to  summit,  the  Chris- 
tianity of  the  future,  which  he  believed  was  also  the 
Christianity  of  the  past."  2  That  he  was  of  too  versatile 
or  erratic  a  genius  to  be  able  himself  to  found  this  Chris- 
tianity of  the  future,  or  to  leave  behind  any  permanent 
results,  the  event  seems  to  have  proved.  His  philosophy 
died  with  him ;  yet  his  religious  speculations  are  of  the 
highest  interest,  his  glimpses  of  coming  truths  were  clear 
and  often  very  startling,  he  won  high  reputation  in  medi- 
cine, in  law,  in  theology,  in  mathematics,  and  in  Oriental 
1  Inst.  i.  xiii  22.  2  Revue,  p.  591. 


198  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

languages ;  while  the  ardent  spirit  of  discovery  and  insa- 
tiate thirst  for  truth,  which  he  carried  into  each  pursuit  in 
turn,  lent  a  charm  to  his  career  which  belonged  to  that  of 
none  of  his  more  noted  contemporaries. 

The  character  of  his  genius,  and  the  extent  of  his 
researches,  cannot  be  better  illustrated  than  by  the  con- 
tribution which  he  made  to  the  great  discovery  of  the 
following  century,  the  circulation  of  the  blood.  In  this 
he  anticipated  Harvey  by  more  than  fifty  years ;  and 
probably  no  scientific  discovery  was  ever  reached  by  a 
more  remarkable  method.  Servetus  came  upon  it  in  the 
midst  of  his  theological  inquiries.  In  reading  the  Old 
Testament  he  found  the  statement  that  "  the  soul  is  in 
the  blood ;  that  the  soul  is  the  blood."  1  "  Then,"  said 
Servetus,  "  to  know  how  the  soul  is  formed,  I  must  know 
how  blood  is  formed;  to  know  how  blood  is  formed,  I 
must  know  how  it  flows."  "  And  thus,"  according  to  the 
statement  of  Flourens,  "  in  his  '  Restoration  of  Christian- 
ity/ he  is  led  to  the  formation  of  the  soul ;  from  the 
formation  of  the  soul  to  the  formation  of  blood ;  and  from 
the  formation  of  blood  to  pulmonary  circulation."  2 

Such  a  spirit  as  this  found,  of  course,  a  most  inviting 
and  legitimate  field  for  its  inquiries  in  early  Christian 
thought,  and  made  many  discoveries  there  which  had 
quite  escaped  the  notice  of  his  less  bold  and  inquisitive 
fellow-reformers.     While  they  went  back  to  Augustine  for 

1  Gen.  ix.  4. 

2  Nouvelle  Biographie  Generate,  43,  "  Servetus  " ;  also  Flourens, 
Jour,  des  Savants,  April,  1854. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  199 

a  practical  system  of  human  salvation,  Servetus  went  back 
beyond  Augustine,  and  beyond  Athanasius,  and  discovered 
there  a  sublime  truth  which  the  later  dogmas  of  the 
church,  as  he  declared,  had  forgotten  and  overlaid.  He 
found  asserted  there,  in  Jewish  and  Christian  Scripture, 
and  in  every  religious  philosophy  of  the  past,  the  absolute 
unity  of  God.  This  truth  he  seized  as  the  kernel  of  all 
philosophy  and  all  religion ;  and  devoted  his  life,  with 
pathetic  zeal,  to  restoring  it  to  its  lost  supremacy. 

The  leading  points  of  the  philosophy  which  Servetus 
based  on  this  truth,  though  too  subtile  and  fanciful  to 
secure  acceptance  from  our  times,  are  yet  worth  a  passing 
notice.  God,  says  Servetus,  beginning  in  a  thoroughly 
Platonic  vein,  is  absolutely  one  and  indivisible ;  the 
essence  and  life  of  all  things.  In  himself  incomprehen- 
sible, he  perpetually  reveals  himself  by  his  ideas ;  these 
ideas  being  not  abstractions,  but  substantial  and  vivifying 
principles.  The  sum  of  these  ideas  is  the  archetypal 
world,  of  which  the  visible  world  is  only  a  shadowy  im- 
age. Visible  things  find  their  reality  and  unity  in  ideas  ; 
ideas  find  their  reality  and  unity  in  God.  God  is  all; 
all  is  God.1  The  application  of  these  principles  to 
Christianity  is  very  striking.  These  primal  ideas,  in  their 
totality,  constitute  the  Word  of  God.  They  emanate 
from  a  primitive  type,  Christ,  who  is  the  type  of  perfect 
humanity.  The  living  Jesus,  whose  historic  appearance, 
supernatural  birth,  and  resurrection  Servetus  admits, 
was  this  eternal  and  invisible  Word  taking  visible  form. 
1  Revue,  pp.  605-609. 


200  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

Christ  is  the  most  perfect  manifestation  of  God,  his 
image,  his  person.  Christ  is  God ;  God,  that  is,  visibly 
entering  into  creation.  "In  Christ,  God  and  man  are 
truly  united  in  one  substance,  one  body,  one  new  man."  1 
The  divinity  and  humanity  are  not  two  separate  things 
combined;  the  humanity  is  the  divinity.  Christ  was  a 
man,  filled  with  the  divine  nature.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  a 
divine  energy  in  creation,  a  moral  principle  in  man.  Sal- 
vation depends  not  on  certain  speculative  views  of  the 
Trinity,  but  on  the  acknowledgment  of  Christ,  in  whom 
alone  God  reveals  himself.2 

Servetus's  dissent  from  the  Trinity,  therefore,  is  on 
peculiar  ground.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  destroys 
Christ's  divinity.  Beside  tearing  the  divine  essence  in 
three,  it  tears  Christ  in  two.  In  separating  his  human 
nature  from  his  divine,  and  making  the  divine  alone  sin- 
less and  infinite,  it  proclaims  Jesus  not  the  Son  of  God ; 
God  not  really  come  in  the  flesh.3  "  Empty  chimeras  ! 
vain  refinements  !  Open  the  Gospel ;  where  is  the  trace 
of  these  puerile  distinctions?  Do  you  find  there  two 
Sons  of  God ;  the  one  perfect,  infinite,  impassable ;  the 
other  finite,  imperfect,  subject  to  temptation  and  suffer- 
ing? No  !  one  Christ  alone,  one  Son  of  God,  single  and 
indivisible."  4  "  Your  Trinity  is  a  product  of  subtilty  and 
madness.  The  Gospel  knows  nothing  of  it.  The  old 
Fathers,   Ignatius,   Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  are   strangers   to 

1  Revue,  p.  615,  notes. 

2  Neander's  Dogmas,  ii.  648 ;  Hagenbach's  Hist,  of  Doc.  ii. 
330;  Gieseler's  Hist.  iv.  352,  n. 

8  Revue,  p.  613.  4  Revue,  p.  612. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  201 

these  vain  distinctions.  It  is  from  the  school  of  Greek 
Sophists  that  you,  Athanasius,  prince  of  tri-theists,  have 
borrowed  it.  .  .  .  There  is  no  middle  ground ;  either 
there  is  in  God  one  substance,  one  essence,  one  person, 
or  there  are  three  gods.  What  more  absurd  than  this  tri- 
theism  !  what  abyss  of  contradictions  !  .  .  .  Degenerate 
theism,  a  thousand  times  inferior  to  that  of  Moses,  or  of 
the  Talmud,  inferior  even  to  the  theology  of  the  Koran  ! 
Ridiculous  divinity,  which  leads  us  back  to  Paganism, 
to  the  three-headed  Cerberus  of  ancient  mythology  !  "  1 
"They  who  assert  three  individual  persons  in  the  God- 
head," were  Servetus's  words  after  hearing  his  sentence, 
"  do  insinuate  that  there  are  three  Gods.  There  remains, 
therefore,  both  on  the  mind  and  understanding,  this  in- 
superable perplexity  and  inexplicable  confusion,  that  three 
are  one,  and  one  is  three." 2 

The  unity  of  the  divine  essence,  as  against  those  dog- 
mas which  in  seeming  to  assert  really  destroy  it,  has  never 
received  a  nobler  vindication  than  at  the  hands  of  Serve- 
tus.  The  idea  possessed  him  wholly  j  and  his  bold  pur- 
suit of  it  to  its  ultimate  consequences  brought  him  upon 
ground  which  to  the  sixteenth  century  seemed  impious 
blasphemy,  but  in  which  the  nineteenth  century  can  read 
the  anticipation  of  its  own  highest  thought.  Our  apostles 
of  science,  who  are  braving  their  little  martyrdoms  to-day, 
will  read  with  sympathy  and  pride  this  almost  forgotten 

1  Revue,  p.  607.  Scattered  passages  from  the  "  Restoration  of 
Christianity." 

2  Drummond's  Life  of  Servetus,  p.  1 52. 


202  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

incident  from  the  martyrdoms  of  the  past.  "  Do  you 
maintain,"  said  Calvin  to  Servetus  in  his  last  trial  at  Ge- 
neva, "that  our  souls  are  offshoots  from  the  divine  sub- 
stance j  that  in  all  being  there  in  one  substantial  deity?" 
"  I  maintain  it,"  was  the  reply.  "  Wretched  man  ! " 
shouted  Calvin,  stamping  his  foot,  "is  this  pavement, 
then,  God  ?  Is  it  God  that  I  trample  this  moment  under 
foot?  "  "  Unquestionably."  "  Then,"  added  Calvin  ironi- 
cally, "  in  the  devils  themselves  is  God  ?  "  "  Do  you 
doubt  it?"  replied  the  unflinching  Christian  pantheist.1 

But  such  heroism  as  this,  had  no  charm  for  the  grim 
dogmatists  of  early  Protestantism.  Least  of  all  for  Cal- 
vin, every  sentiment  of  whose  nature  was  crossed  by  this 
fiery,  irreverent,  unyielding  iconoclast.  The  mind  which 
cares  more  to  see  clearly  than  to  see  far,  and  is  impatient 
of  any  religious  truth  that  will  not  yield  itself  to  exact  and 
infallible  dogma,  can  tolerate  speculative  thought  only  by 
the  exercise  of  sheer  condescension  and  magnanimity; 
and  magnanimity  unfortunately  was  a  trait  whose  meaning, 
in  theological  matters,  Calvin  did  not  know.  When  Ser- 
vetus published,  first  his  "  Seven  Books  on  the  Errors  of 
the  Trinity,"  and  afterwards  his  more  pronounced  and 
noted  work  on  the  "  Restoration  of  Christianity,"  in  which 
he  commented  on  Calvin's  own  opinions  with  daring 
frankness,  his  doom,  so  far  as  Calvin  could  compass  it, 
was  already  sealed.  After  failing,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  to  set  in  motion  against  Servetus  the  machinery  of 
Catholic  persecution  in  Vienne,  Calvin  secured  the  still 
1  Revue,  p.  610. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  203 

more  brilliant  triumph  of  kindling  in  Geneva  the  flames 
of  a  Protestant  Inquisition ;  and  dismissing  into  eternity, 
in  frightful  agony,  the  soul  that  had  dared  assert  the  abso- 
lute unity  of  God.  After  ages  have  sought  to  relieve  Cal- 
vin from  the  responsibility  of  this  act :  but  Calvin  himself 
sought  no  such  escape,  nor  desired  it.  He  did  not  him- 
self try  Servetus  nor  condemn  him  j  but  he  brought  him 
to  a  trial  of.  which  the  result  was  foreshadowed  from  the 
beginning,  and  expressed  no  regret  at  the  issue.  Not 
one  of  the  leading  reformers  grieved  over  it.  Melanch- 
thon,  Bullinger,  Beza,  and  Farel  openly  approved  of  it. 
Protestantism  was  well  content  with  the  death  of  the 
"cursed  Spaniard."1 

From  Spain  we  turn  to  Italy,  where,  although  the  Re- 
formation gained  no  visible  foothold,  yet  Protestantism 
found  itself  eagerly  welcomed  by  a  little  band  of  scholars 
who,  long  before  Luther's  appearance,  had  been  trained 
to  the  most  free  and  fearless  speculative  thought.2  No- 
where were  the  new  ideas  carried  to  greater  extremes 
than  by  the  few  who  received  them  in  Italy.3  About  the 
year  1546,  a  little  knot  of  forty  men  are  said  to  have 
formed  a  secret  society  in  Vicenza,  in  the  territory  of  Ven- 
ice, for  the  free  discussion  of  the  great  religious  and  phil- 
osophical questions  which  the  Reformation  had  opened. 
From  what  we  can  learn  of  their  discussions,  they  seem 
to  have  dealt   with  profounder  themes   than  commonly 

1  See  Lecture  VIII.  for  death  of  Servetus. 

2  Lecky's  Rationalism,  i.  369. 

3  Biographie  Generate,  43,  "  Socinus." 


204  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

came  within  the  scope  of  early  Protestantism,  and  to  have 
drawn  from  a  larger  scholarship  ;  for  they  not  only  reached 
the  conclusions  that  God  was  the  one  Supreme  Being, 
and  that  Jesus,  though  born  indeed  of  a  Virgin,  was  but 
a  man ;  they  also  claimed  that  the  popular  doctrines  of 
the  Trinity,  the  Deity  of  Christ,  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit,  Justification,  and  the  Imputation  of  Christ's  merits, 
were  foreign  corruptions,  u  introduced  into  Christianity  by 
Greek  philosophers." 1 

One  of  this  interesting  band  of  religious  inquirers  was 
Lselius  Socinus,  of  Siena,2  heir  of  a  name  already  emi- 
nent in  jurisprudence,  and  destined  now,  as  borne  by 
himself  and  his  more  noted  nephew,  to  gain  equal 
eminence  in  theology.8  Laelius  is  described  as  "a  man 
of  rare  eloquence,  familiar  with  Biblical  languages  and 
as  able  a  critic  as  in  those  times  it  was  possible  for  a 
man  to  be  ;  "  4  but  little  is  to  be  told  of  his  career,  except 
that  on  the  discovery  and  dispersal  of  the  band  of  forty, 
he  was  forced  to  flee  and  found  his  way  to  France,  to  Eng- 
land, to  Poland,  and  finally  to  Zurich,  where  he  died  at 
the  age  of  thirty-seven.  With  little  of  the  controversial 
spirit  of  Servetus,  and  showing  the  tastes  of  the  student 

1  Gieseler,  iv.  355,  note.  2  1525- 1562. 

3  Bayle  speaks  of  one  Socinus  ( 1401 ),  a  distinguished  jurisconsult 
of  the  fifteenth  century,  as  "  the  most  universal  man  of  his  age ;  " 
of  his  grandson,  the  father  of  Laelius,  as  "  no  less  illustrious,"  being 
Doctor  of  Jurisprudence  at  twenty-one,  and  afterwards  professor 
at  Padua  and  Bologna  ;  and  of  a  son  of  the  latter  as  "  dying  young, 
with  the  reputation  of  a  learned  jurist."  Dictionaire  Historique 
et  Critique,  p.  2604. 

4  Biog.  Generate,  "  Socinus." 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  205 

rather  than  the  mettle  of  the  reformer,  he  never  sought  to 
disseminate  his  views  beyond  the  circle  of  his  friends  and 
correspondents,  yet  left  upon  others  the  distinct  impress 
of  his  own  free  and  original  thought.  Among  these  others 
was  his  nephew  Faustus  Socinus  of  Siena,1  who  was  the 
true  founder  of  Socinianism.  He  too  was  a  refugee  when 
history  first  mentions  him,  having  been  driven  from  Italy 
for  his  theological  opinions  before  he  was  twenty,  and 
having  escaped  to  France.  Although  permitted  to  return 
to  Italy  after  his  uncle's  death,  and  remaining  for  twelve 
years  in  the  service  of  the  Grand  Duke  of  Tuscany,  he 
finally  abandoned,  of  his  own  accord,  the  elegant  ease  of 
court  life,  and  devoted  himself  to  the  study  and  propaga- 
tion of  a  purer  theology.  His  life,  unlike  that  of  his  uncle, 
was  an  active  one  throughout.  On  going  from  Italy  to 
Basle,  in  1574,  for  purposes  of  study,  he  excited  such 
theological  hostility  there  that  he  was  forced  to  leave 
in  1578,  and  went  next  to  Transylvania,  whither  Blan- 
drata  had  preceded  him,  and  where  he  found  Uni- 
tarianism  publicly  recognized  and  already  firmly  estab- 
lished ;  so  firmly,  as  it  proved,  that  it  has  maintained  its 
position  as  a  flourishing  church  to  the  present  day.  From 
Transylvania,  he  went,  in  1579^0  Poland,  where  his  uncle 
had  taught  Unitarianism  more  than  twenty  years  before, 
and  where  the  nephew  now  preached  and  disputed  with 
a  vigor  which  made  Socinianism  from  that  day  a  great 
power  in  the  Christian  world.2  Protestantism,  Socinus 
taught,  must  rest  on  the  single  basis  of  human  reason, 
1  I539-I6o4-  2  Faiths  of  the  World,  ii.  608. 


206  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

casting  out  whatever  contradicts  reason,  and  refusing 
shelter  to  dogmas  which  claim  acceptance  solely  as  mys- 
teries. His  doctrines  proved  startling,  it  is  true,  even  to 
his  own  sect,  and  caused  his  temporary  withdrawal  from 
Cracow,  at  one  time  even  endangering  his  life;  but  he 
remained  in  Poland,  was  married  there,  lost  his  Italian 
property  by  confiscation,  battled  bravely  for  his  doctrines 
at  the  Synod  of  Brest  in  1588,  and  died  in  enforced  retire- 
ment in  1 604. 

In  his  theological  position,  Socinus,  who  was  far  less 
speculative  and  more  exactly  critical  than  Servetus,  recalls 
in  many  respects  the  old  and  much  condemned  heresy  of 
Paul  of  Samosata ;  who  held,  as  you  may  remember,  that 
Christ,  though  pure  man  by  nature,  yet  received  such 
illumination  of  divine  wisdom  that  he  became  God  by 
progressive  development.1  One  of  the  main  points  in 
Socinus's  system,  and  one  in  which  later  Unitarianism  has 
hardly  followed  his  leadership,  was  that  Christ,  although 
not  pre-existing,  is  yet  a  deified  man,  has  been  taken  up 
into  heaven  where  he  is  now  reigning,  and  consequently 
must  be  worshipped.  This  belief  he  seems  to  have  based 
upon  such  passages  as  John  iii.  13  :  "  No  man  hath 
ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from 
heaven,  the  Son  of  man  which  is  in  heaven ; "  John  vi. 
38,  46  :  "I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  mine  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  mej"  "  Not  that  any 
man  hath  seen  the  Father,  save  he  which  is  of  God,  he 
hath  seen  the  Father ;  "  all  which  he  interpreted  as  mean- 
1  See  Lecture  II. ;  Neander's  Hist.  i.  601. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  207 

ing  that  Christ  had  risen  repeatedly  to  heaven  to  receive 
divine  illumination  and  guidance,  and  had  come  down 
again  to  earth  to  impart  them  to  his  followers.  So  strenu- 
ously, indeed,  did  Socinus  insist  upon  the  worship  of 
Christ,  that  this  doctrine  led,  in  1584,  to  an  open  rupture 
between  himself  and  the  Polish  Unitarians,  and  created 
the  two  parties  of  "  worshippers  (adorantes)  and  "  non- 
worshippers." 

Perhaps  I  cannot  better  point  out  the  leading  doctrines 
of  this  peculiar  theology,  than  by  a  few  quotations  from 
one  of  the  two  Polish  Catechisms ;  both  of  which  have  an 
interest  for  us  as  being,  so  far  as  I  know,  the  only  official 
creeds  or  confessions  which  Unitarianism  has  ever  given 
to  the  world.  In  1574,  a  catechism  was  published  in 
Cracow,  styled,  "  Catechism  and  Confession  of  the  Con- 
gregations gathered  in  Poland  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
our  crucified  and  risen  Lord."  In  1605,  after  the  Polish 
Unitarians  had  become  Socinian,  appeared  in  Racow, 
under  the  auspices  of  Socinus  himself,  the  "  Racovian 
Catechism,"  arranged  under  these  eight  heads  :  I.  Scripture. 
II.  Way  of  Salvation.  III.  Knowledge  of  God.  IV.  Knowl- 
edge of  Christ.  V.  Prophetic  Office  of  Christ.  VI.  Kingly 
Office  of  Christ.  VII.  Priestly  Office  of  Christ.  VIII. 
Church  of  Christ.  Some  of  the  questions  and  answers? 
very  freely  translated  from  the  Cracovian  Catechism,  are  as 
follows  i1  "  Whence  do  we  learn  the  Christian  religion?" 
"From  the  Sacred  Writings;  especially  the  New  Testa- 
ment." "Are  there  any  Sacred  Writings  except  the  New 
1  See  Gieseler,  iv.  367,  n. ;  Winer's  Confessions  of  Christendom. 


208  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Testament?  "  " There  are  ;  the  Old  Testament ;  but  the 
truth  of  the  Christian  religion  is  contained  only  in  the 
New,  and  that  only  demands  our  faith."  l  "  Do  you 
recognize,  beside  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  also  a  di- 
vine ?  "  "  Not  if  we  are  to  understand  by  divine  the  same 
essence  as  God's."2  "Who  is  Christ?"  "The  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God,  who  by  divine  power  has  become 
God,  and  has  received  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth."  8 
"As  Christ  has  received  divine  power,  he  must  receive 
divine  honor."  "In  what  does  divine  honor  consist?" 
"  In  adoring  him,  and  receiving  his  aid."  4  "  Is  the  Holy 
Spirit  ever  called  God?  "  "  Never."  "  Is  it  a  person?  " 
"  No.  Since  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in  God,  and  God  is  never 
said  to  be  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  plainly  is  not  a  person." 
"  Was  Adam  originally  good  ?  "  "  No  !  else  he  would  not 
have  sinned."5  "What  followed  from  Adam's  fall?" 
"  Death  (for  the  whole  race) ,  but  not  corruption,  nor  loss 
of  free-will."  6  "  What  shall  we  say  of  Christ's  person?  " 
"  That  he  was  by  nature  a  true  man,  and  when  on  earth 
was  mortal,  but  is  now  immortal."  "  Was  he  a  common 
man?  "  "  No  !  he  was  not  pure  man ;  but  was  conceived 
of  the  Virgin,  having  no  father  but  God." 7  "  Should 
infants  be  baptized?"  "No,  there  is  no  authority  for 
it  in  Scripture."  8  "  What  is  the  object  of  the  Lord's 
Supper?  "  "  Some  call  it  a  sacrifice  ;  some  a  sacrament ; 
some  say  it  is  for  remission  of  sins ;  it  is  really  an  institution 

1  Winer,  45.  2  Id.  64.  3  Not  in  first  edition. 

4  Winer,  65.  6  Id.  84.  6  Id.  95. 

7  Id,  117.  8Id.  238. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  209 

to  commemorate  his  death." 1  "  How  do  we  commem- 
orate his  death  ?  "  "  By  giving  thanks  to  Christ,  for  hav- 
ing shed  his  blood  through  ineffable  love  to  us." 2 

The  Unitarianism  of  to-day  would  hardly  recognize 
itself  in  these  remarkable  doctrines.  Indeed,  it  is  always 
singular  to  see  how  reluctantly  even  professed  rationalism 
breaks  with  venerated  notions.  Socinus  declaring  that 
Christ  "  became  God  "  and  must  be  worshipped,  Serve- 
tus  claiming  that  Christ  is  God  assuming  visible  form, 
and  defending  against  Orthodoxy  Christ's  divinity,  Arius 
calling  Christ  "  perfect  God,"  would  not  in  these  days  be 
counted  dangerous  heretics.  Yet  Orthodoxy  was  quite 
right  in  its  suspicions  and  its  fears.  The  spirit  of  Protest- 
ant rationalism  was  there,  and  these  crude  dogmas  were 
the  stammering  accents  in  which  the  infant  heresy  was 
proclaiming  its  faith. 

To  all  appearance,  this  special  form  of  heresy  was  stifled 
at  its  birth ;  for  Socinianism,  banished  from  Poland  half  a 
century  after  its  founder's  death,  has  had  no  recognized 
existence  since  that  day,  except  under  a  modified  form  in 
Transylvania.3  Yet  it  has  not  died,  nor  was  its  influence 
limited  to  Poland.  Bayle,  writing  in  1 700  of  Socinus  and 
his  work,  said  :  "  The  sect  was  driven  from  Poland  in  1658, 
and  has  much  fallen  off  in  visible  estate ;  but  no  one 
denies  that  it  has  invisibly  greatly  multiplied,  and  is  grow- 
ing day  by  day.  Indeed,  in  'the  present  condition  of 
things,  many  think  that  Europe  must  not  be  surprised,  if 
only  a  few  princes  should  adopt  it,  or  even  remove  its 

1  Winer,  264.  2  Id.  264..  3  Gieseler,  iv.  370. 

14 


2IO  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

political  disabilities,  to  find  herself  Socinian  very  soon. 
Against  its  progress  can  only  be  mentioned  the  fact  that 
it  disapproves  of  war,  and  forbids  its  followers  to  hold 
civil  office."  * 

Bayle's  prophecy  has  hardly  been  fulfilled;  perhaps 
because  the  "  few  princes "  were  not  forthcoming,  per- 
haps because  this  hostility  to  war  and  to  civil  affairs  told 
too  severely  against  the  young  faith.  Socinianism,  in  its 
original  form,  no  more  exists  to-day  than  does  Arianism, 
or  Athanasianism.  Yet  it  has  its  legitimate  successors, 
some  of  which  we  are  now  to  notice. 

By  a  singular  historical  caprice,  the  next  name  to  be 
mentioned  in  this  connection,  is  of  one  who  had  hardly 
more  leaning  towards  Unitarianism  than  had  Calvin  or 
Luther,  who  dissented  from  Orthodoxy  on  a  wholly  differ- 
ent issue,  yet  on  whom  an  unkind  fate  has  laid  the  burden 
of  Socinian  error,  and  who,  in  spite  of  himself,  has  to  be 
enumerated  among  the  fathers  of  our  liberal  faith.  The 
name  by  which  the  early  Unitarians  of  America  were 
known,  was  Arminian ;  and  to  many  intelligent  minds 
to-day,  Arminianism  and  Socinianism  are  quite  indis- 
tinguishable terms.  Let  us  do  them  both  the  justice 
of  seeing  in  what  the  true  connection  between  them 
lies. 

Arminius 2  was  the  son  of  a  Dutch  cutler,  received  his 

education  partly  in  Leyden,  partly  in  Geneva,  where  he 

was  well  taught  in  the  doctrines  of  Calvinism,  and  was  at 

first  settled  as  a  pastor  in  Amsterdam,  in  1588,  at  a  time 

1  Bayle's  Diet.  p.  2609.  2  1560-1609. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  211 

when  Holland  was  almost  equally  divided  between  Luther- 
anism  and  Calvinism.  The  point  in  controversy  between 
the  two  churches  at  that  time,  and  just  then  coming  to 
open  issue,  was  the  old  Augustinian  doctrine  of  Predes- 
tination. Between  the  two  reformers  themselves,  there 
would  seem  to  have  been  less  difference  in  this  doctrine 
than  they  themselves  admitted;  as  Luther  said  in  criti- 
cising Erasmus,  "  The  human  will  is  like  a  beast  of  bur- 
den. If  God  mounts  it,  it  works  and  goes  as  God  wills ; 
if  Satan  mounts  it,  it  works  and  goes  as  Satan  wills.  Nor 
can  it  choose  the  rider  it  would  prefer,  or  betake  itself  to 
him,  but  it  is  the  riders  who  contend  for  its  possession." 
"  God  foreknows  nothing  subject  to  contingencies,  but  he 
foresees,  foreordains,  and  accomplishes  all  things  by  an 
unchanging,  eternal,  and  efficacious  will."1  As  between 
their  followers,  however,  the  Lutherans  held  that  each 
soul  was  predestined  to  happiness  or  misery,  on  the 
ground  that  God  foresaw  that  it  would  deserve  the  one 
fate  or  the  other ;  while  the  Calvinists,  following  Augustine 
more  closely,  regarded  Predestination,  whether  to  happi- 
ness or  misery,  as  a  purely  arbitrary  act  on  God's  part, 
unconditioned  by  anything  in  the  soul  itself.2 

Arminius,  who  was  called  upon  to  take  the  prominent 
place  in  this  dispute,  and  to  throw  the  weight  of  his  rare 
learning  and  eloquence  on  the  side  of  Calvinism,  found 
himself,  to  his  own  great  surprise,  unable  to  do  so,  and 
ended   by  accepting  the   opinions   he  was  expected   to 

1  Quoted  by  Lecky,  i.  385. 

2  Comp.  McClin.  and  Strong's  Bib.  Cyclopaedia,  i.  414. 


212  ORTHODOXY   AND   HERESY. 

refute.  His  views  do  not  seem  to  have  been,  at  first,  very 
outspoken;  as  in  1604  he  was  made  professor  in  the 
University  of  Leyden,  and  two  years  afterwards  its  rector ; 
but  his  coming  to  the  University  was  the  signal  for  a 
renewal  of  the  strife,  and  after  passing  through  one  of  the 
bitterest  controversies  of  even  that  bitter  and  controversial 
age,  he  finally  proposed,  and  left  behind  him  at  his  death, 
in  1609,  the  series  of  doctrines  which,  with  slight  modi- 
fications by  his  followers,  have  since  borne  his  name. 

The  tenor  of  these  doctrines,  which  concern  themselves 
almost  exclusively  with  what  seemed  to  the  angry  dis- 
putants the  whole  of  Christianity,  the  question  of  Predes- 
tination, can  be  best  judged  by  these  brief  extracts  from 
Arminius's  "  Declaration  of  Sentiments,"  published  the 
year  before  his  death.  "  God  decreed  to  save  and  damn 
particular  persons  because  he  knew  from  all  eternity  who 
would  believe  and  persevere,  and  who  would  not  believe 
and  persevere."  "  In  his  lapsed  and  sinful  state,  man  is 
not  capable  of  and  by  himself  either  to  think,  will,  or  to 
do  what  is  good ;  it  is  necessary  for  him  to  be  regen- 
erated by  God  in  Christ,  through  the  Holy  Spirit."  On 
this  point,  especially  as  it  relates  to  Free  Will  and  Grace, 
Arminius  showed  singular  anxiety  that"  his  orthodoxy 
should  be  understood.  "  Grace  is  essential,"  he  declared  ; 
"  I  ascribe  to  Grace  the  beginning,  continuation,  and 
consummation  of  all  good."  1  His  nearest  approach  to 
heresy  was  in  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  in  regard  to  which 
he  was  very  sensitive,  having  been  made  the  object,  as  he 
1  Writings  of  Arminius,  Nicholls,  I  248,  252,  253. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  213 

said,  of  "  notorious  calumnies."  "  Christ  is  truly  God," 
according  to  Arminius,  yet  is  not  "  underived,"  or  "  abso- 
lute God"  (if  that  be  the  exact  shade  of  Deity  which 
Orthodoxy  expresses  by  "  autotheos").  If  the  Son  is  in 
strict  sense  autotheos,  he  is  the  Father.  "  The  ancient 
church,"  he  insisted,  has  always  taught  that  "  the  Son  has 
his  Deity  from  the  Father  by  eternal  generation  ;  "  in  other 
words,  is  subordinate  to  the  Father.1  "  To  be  Son  and  to 
be  God  are  at  perfect  agreement."2  After  announcing 
his  acceptance  of  Calvin's  doctrine  a  that  Christ's  merits 
are  the  sole  cause  for  which  God  pardons  sins," 3  he 
returns  once  more  to  the  question  of  Christ's  nature,  and 
says,  "  You  know  with  what  deep  fear,  and  with  what  con- 
scientious solicitude  I  treat  that  sublime  doctrine  of  a 
Trinity  of  Persons."  "  God  is  from  eternity.  The  Father 
is  from  no  one.     The  Son  is  from  the  Father."  K 

This  very  mild  departure  from  Orthodoxy,  which  to  us 
seems  so  trivial  and  so  wearisome,  was  sufficient  to  keep 
the  States  of  Holland  in  furious  agitation  for  ten  years 
after  the  death  of  Arminius.  At  the  Synod  of  Dort,  held 
in  1 61 8- 1 9,  which,  like  some  of  the  councils  of  earlier 
and  holier  ages,  is  charged  with  having  been  so  made 
up  that  its  decision  was  secure  in  advance,  Calvinism 
was  proclaimed  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Church 
of  the  Netherlands,  and  three  hundred  of  the  Arminian 
or  Remonstrant  clergy  were  expelled  from  the  country.5 

1  Writings  of  Arminius,  i.  p.  258.        2  Id.  p.  261.        3  Id.  p.  264. 
4  Apology  against  thirty-one  Defamatory  Articles,  p.  343. 
6  Hase's  History,  p.  416. 


214  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

A  few  years  later,  under  more  favorable  political  condi- 
tions, the  exiles  returned;  and  since  that  time  Armin- 
ianism  has  been  fully  tolerated  in  Holland,  beside  going 
abroad  to  temper  the  rigor  of  Calvinism  in  other  lands. 
It  is  to-day  the  doctrine  of  the  entire  Methodist  church, 
beside  having  a  large  following  in  the  church  of  England, 
and  among  the  Lutherans  in  Germany.1 

It  is  quite  clear  from  the  above  account  that,  in  its 
primitive  form,  Arminianism  had  as  little  connection  as 
possible  with  Socinianism,  either  in  its  dogmas,  or  in  its 
spirit.  Yet  one  heresy  makes  another  easy.  As  a  simple 
matter  of  fact,  the  Arminian  clergy  of  Holland,  though 
dwindling  in  numbers,  are  tending  constantly  to  greater 
freedom  of  thought  on  all  religious  themes,  and  are 
known  now  to  reject  all  creeds  and  confessions,  and  to 
hold  very,  advanced  views  on  Scripture  interpretation,  the 
Trinity,  and  the  Sacraments.2  In  many  sects,  Arminian- 
ism has  proved  the  stepping-stone  to  a  larger  liberty  and 
broader  faith. 

One  point  is  still  to  be  touched  upon  before  my  sub- 
ject is  complete.  I  have  shown  at  how  early  a  period 
of  the  Reformation,  and  under  how  many  different  forms, 
Unitarianism  appeared ;  it  remains  to  be  seen  how  it 
took  the  form  under  which  we  are  familiar  with  it,  in 
England  and  America. 

Socinian  doctrines  seem  to  have  been  somewhat  slow 
in  reaching  England;  yet  in  1665,  Dr.  Owen  wrote  of 
them :  "  The  evil  is  at  the  door ;  there  is  not  a  city,  a 

•  1  McClintock  and  Strong,  i.  417.  2  Giesler,  iv.  513. 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  21 5 

town,  scarce  a  village  in  England  wherein  some  of  this 
poison  is  not 'poured  forth."  The  assertion  of  another 
writer,  in  1705,  that  there  were  "troops  of  Unitarian 
and  Socinian  writers  and  not  one  dissenter  among  them," 
would  indicate  that  the  dogmatic  indifference  of  the 
established  church  had  given  free  entrance  to  heretical 
ideas ;  while  Presbyterianism,  in  refusing  to  commit 
itself  to  any  doctrinal  system,  exposed  itself  to  the  same 
infection,  and  prepared  the  way  for  the  avowed  Unita- 
rianism  of  the  eighteenth  century.1 

The  formal  appearance  of  what  had  been  so  long  se- 
cretly approaching,  was  simple  and  uneventful  in  the 
extreme.  In  1774,  Dr.  Lindsey,  who  had  resigned  a 
charge  in  the  church  of  England,  became  pastor  of  a 
Unitarian  congregation  in  Essex  Street,  London ;  and 
thus  the  Unitarian  movement,  in  so  far  as  any  single 
incident  constituted  its  beginning,  was  initiated.  A  still 
more  important  apostle  it  found,  however,  in  Joseph 
Priestley,  who,  in  1755,  had  become  pastor  of  a  small 
dissenting  congregation  in  Suffolk,  and  was  already  con- 
spicuous as  a  champion  of  humanitarian  theology.  Priest- 
ley was  born  in  1733,  and  had  been  educated  as  a 
Calvinist,  but  before  he  was  nineteen  claimed  to  be 
"rather  a  believer  in  the  doctrines  of  Arminius,"  adding, 
however,  "  I  had  by  no  means  rejected  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  or  that  of  the  Atonement."2  At  about  the 
same  time  he  was  refused  admission  to  a  Calvinist  com- 
munion, because  he  could  not  agree  that  "all  the  human 

1  Chambers'  Encyc,  art.  "  Unitarians."  2  Chamb.  Encyc. 


2l6        ORTHODOXY  AND  HERESY. 

race  were  liable  to  the  wrath  of  God  and  the  pains  of 
hell  forever,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam  only." '  After 
entering  the  ministry,  his  views  took,  as  has  been  said, 
a  distinctively  humanitarian  form,  although,  at  the  same 
time,  he  retained  positive  belief  in  the  New  Testament 
miracles,  as  the  credentials  of  Christ's  mission.  Starting 
with  the  assumption  that  the  Brble  is  a  divine  revelation, 
and  rejecting  carefully  what  seemed  to  him  merely  eccle- 
siastical interpretations  of  Bible  passages,  he  rejected  the 
Trinity  and  Atonement  as  unscriptural,  and  held  that 
Christ  himself  claimed  to  be  man  and  nothing  more.2 

Priestley's  theology  shows  but  little  spiritual  depth, 
and  his  highest  distinction  was  won  rather  in  science 
than  in  religion;  yet  his  open  advocacy  of  Unitarian 
views,  and  the  respectful  hearing  which  he  won  for 
them,  while  they  were  still  hated  and  condemned,  and 
while  bringing  upon  himself  bitter  obloquy  and  persecu- 
tion as  well  as  loss  of  scientific  preferment,  entitle  him 
to  a  high  place  among  the  leaders  of  our  faith.  His 
career,  as  is  well  known,  was  a  troubled  one,  and  shows 
that  the  days  of  Protestant  persecution,  which  began 
with  Luther  and  Calvin,  were  not  yet  wholly  past.  Like 
Socinus  before  him,  he  lost  his  books,  manuscripts,  and 
philosophical  instruments^  at  the  hands  of  a  religious 
mob;  and  finally,  through  the  combined  influence  of 
political  and  theologic  hatred,  he  was  virtually  banished 
from  his  native  land.     In  1792,  he  removed  to  America 

1  Ware's  Priestley's  Views,  p.  viii. 

2  Comp.  Chamb.  Encyc.,  "  Priestley." 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  217 

where  he  was  received  with  great  respect,  and  where  he 
lived  long  enough  to  add  fresh  stimulus  to  the  young 
Unitarianism  which  was  just  bursting  the  bonds  of  New 
England  Episcopacy  and  Puritanism. 

Unitarianism  in'  America,  as  in  England,  sprang  from 
several  roots.  In  1787,  the  oldest  Episcopal  church  in 
New  England,  King's  Chapel  in  Boston,  erased  from  its 
Prayer  Book  and  Articles  all  Trinitarian  Confessions,  and 
became,  under  James  Freeman,  the  first  Unitarian  church 
in  America.  It  retains  the  Liturgical  service  to  this  day, 
having  carried  a  few  steps  further  the  revision  of  the 
Catholic  ritual  begun  by  Cranmer.  In  a  letter  to  Dr. 
Lindsey  in  London,  whose  withdrawal  from  the  estab- 
lished church  had  occurred  but  a  few  years  before,  Free- 
man wrote  that  there  was  only  one  minister  in  New 
England  who  openly  preached  the  "Socinian  Scheme," 
although  there  were  many  churches  in  which  the  wor- 
ship was  strictly  Unitarian,  and  some  of  New  England's 
most  eminent  laymen  openly  avowed  that  creed.1  Many 
other  New  England  churches  followed  the  example  of 
King's  Chapel.  Among  the  rest,  in  1801,  the  oldest 
Puritan  church  in  New  England  or  America,  the  original 
church  of  the  Mayflower,  established  in  Plymouth  in 
1620,  declared  itself,  by  the  vote  of  a  large  majority,  in 
sympathy  with  the  new  liberal  movement,  and  assumed 
the  Unitarian  name.  Indeed,  its  heresy  was  prepared 
for  it  in  advance;  for  so  simple  had  been  the  terms  of 
the  Covenant  adopted  by  the  early  colonists,  that  not  a 
1  Gannett's  Memoir  of  Ezra  Stiles  Gannett,  p.  39. 


21 8  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

letter  had  to  be  changed  in  taking  the  Unitarian  position. 
The  church  uses  to-day  the  identical  statement  of  faith 
drawn  up  by  its  Pilgrim  founders.  Still  earlier  than  this, 
in  1786,  the  society  which  I  am  now  addressing  had 
withdrawn,  on  the  ground  of  its  Arminian  faith,  from 
the  First  Parish  of  Worcester,  and  was  ready  among  the 
first  to  take  part  in  the  schismatic  movement  which 
could  not  be  long  delayed. 

Protestant  Orthodoxy  had  learned  little  from  the  past. 
It  still  honestly  supposed  itself  to  have  a  church  and 
dogmatic  system  of  its  own,  any  departure  from  which 
was  heresy;  and  therefore,  instead  of  welcoming  the 
new  theological  movement,  it  forced  it  into  the  position 
of  dissent.  About  the  year  18 15,  the  new  views  had 
spread  so  rapidly,  and  the  Orthodox  opposition  to  them 
had  become  so  determined,  that  no  alternative  remained 
but  for  the  congregations  which  had  taken  an  independent 
position,  to  separate  formally  from  their  sister  churches, 
and  call  themselves  by  a  distinctive  name.  The  spread 
of  the  movement  through  the  State  of  Massachusetts 
was  instantaneous;  and  the  lofty  eloquence  and  noble 
humanity  of  Channing  and  other  early  leaders  of  the 
cause  left  the  question  no  longer  in  doubt  whether  Uni- 
tarianism  had  a  place  in  the  Protestant  church. 

It  is  no  part  of  my  purpose  to  defend  the  rights  of 
Unitarianism,  yet  I  trust  that  the  foregoing  statement 
has  shown  this  simple  fact,  —  that  Unitarianism  stands 
on  precisely  the  same  footing  with  the  other  heretical 
bodies  of  Protestantism ;  that,  with   an   origin   quite  as 


UNITARIAN   HERESIES.  219 

ancient,  and  an  ancestry  quite  as  noble,  it  is  simply 
carrying  into  remoter  realms  of  Christian  truth  that 
independent  exercise  of  human  reason,  that  spirit  of 
rationalism,  without  which  Protestantism  itself  could  have 
had  no  being. 

April  12,  1874. 


RELIGION   AND   DOGMA. 

r  I  ^HE  course  of  lectures  now  closing,  in  directly 
-*■  answering  one  question,  has  aided  indirectly,  I  trust, 
in  answering  another.  If.  it  has  clearly  traced  the  de- 
velopment of  Christian  doctrines  from  the  beginning,  it 
has  helped  us  to  determine  in  what  relation  Christian 
doctrine  in  general  stands  to  the  Christian  religion.  As 
we  are  now  for  the  first  time  in  a  position  to  consider 
this  point,  I  invite  you  this  evening  to  take  one  more 
glance  with  me  over  the  ground  which  we  have  traversed, 
that  we  may  see  to  what  conclusions  we  are  brought. 
What  relation  do  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  hold  to 
Christianity  itself? 

The  point  from  which  we  started,  you  will  perhaps 
remember,  was  this ;  that  the  Scriptures  themselves  con- 
tain two  distinct  conceptions  of  Christ's  nature.  While 
the  first  three  Gospels  present  Christ  as  simply  the 
Jewish  Messiah,  and  ascribe  to  him  purely  human  attri- 
butes, the  fourth  Gospel  and  Paul's  epistles  present 
him  as  a  pre-existerit  and  spiritual  being,  with  certain 
divine  attributes,  and  standing  in  peculiar  relation  to 
God.     These  two  conceptions,  which  divided  the  Chris- 


RELIGION  AND   DOGMA.  221 

tian  community  before  the  Scriptures  were  written,  intro- 
duced naturally  an  element  of  disunion  into  all  the  early 
churches ;  and  we  accordingly  find  in  the  Christian 
writings  of  the  first  three  centuries,  the  most  conflicting 
views  concerning  the  nature  of  Christ.  On  the  one 
hand,  are  writers  like  Justin  Martyr,  Irenaeus,  and  Ter- 
tullian,  who  carry  Paul's  thought  to  much  greater  lengths, 
consider  Christ  a  subordinate  deity,  and  find  much  fault 
with  those  who  call  him  "  a  mere  man ; "  on  the  other 
hand,  writers  like  Paul  of  Samosata,  who  reproduce  the 
primitive  idea  of  Christ  held  by  the  Apostles  at  Jerusa- 
lem, insist  that  Jesus  was  born  human,  even  if  he  became 
afterwards  divine,  and  charge  their  opponents,  when  call- 
ing Christ  God,  with  making  two  gods.  How  to  call 
Christ  man,  on  the  one  hand,  without  robbing  him  of 
all  spiritual  functions  and  degrading  him  to  the  mere 
office  of  a  Jewish  Messiah,  how  to  call  him  divine,  on 
the  other  hand,  without  making  two  gods,  was  the  main 
religious  problem  of  the  first  three  centuries.  To  aid 
this  controversy,  or  complicate  it,  came  in  certain  phrases 
and  conceptions,  from  Oriental  and  Greek  philosophy, 
concerning  the  "Word"  or  "Logos"  as  emanating  eter- 
nally from  God ;  and  somewhat  later,  the  Greek  idea 
of  a  threefold  personality  in  the  divine  nature,  which, 
when  once  suggested,  took  strong  hold  of  the  Christian 
imagination,  and  assumed  very  different  forms  at  the 
hands  of  a  Tertullian,  an  Origen,  and  a  Sabellius. 

The  first  mention  of  a  trinity  in  the  divine  nature,  or 
of  any  threefold  conception  in   connection   with  Deity, 


222  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

we  found,  just  at  the  end  of  the  second  century,  in  the 
writings  of  Tertullian.  Although  the  idea  of  Christ  as 
in  some  sense  a  god,  had  been  for  some  time  familiar, 
yet  none  of  the  writers  of  that  period  seem  to  have 
thought  of  a  third  divine  element,  until  the  idea  was 
suggested  by  Tertullian  to  meet  an  obvious  difficulty.  If 
Christ  was  a  god,  there  was  danger,  of  course,  of  either 
identifying  him  with  the  absolute  God,  and  so  losing 
sight  of  Christ's  personality,  or  of  so  separating  the  two 
Gods  as  to  fall  into  polytheism.  Both  these  results 
actually  followed ;  and,  whether  influenced  by  this  danger 
or  not,  it  was  in  answer  to  a  writer  who  spoke  of  "  God 
himself  as  born  of  the  Virgin,"  that  Tertullian,  unpre- 
pared for  so  gross  a  doctrine,  first  broached  the  concep- 
tion of  a  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  who  constitute 
what  he  calls  a  "  unity  distributed  into  a  trinity."  These 
chance  words  of  Tertullian,  on  which  he  very  briefly  dwelt, 
and  to  which  he  gave  no  complete  or  systematic  form, 
proved  to  be  the  first  expression  of  a  theory  which,  under 
many  modifications,  and  after  prolonged  controversy,  was 
finally  adopted  as  the  doctrine  of  Christendom  concern- 
ing the  relation  of  Christ  to  God. 

The  settlement  of  the  doctrine  was  reached,  and  its 
first  official  statement  made,  as  we  have  seen,  by  a  series 
of  church  councils,  held  between  the  years  325  and  451. 
The  steps  toward  this  end  were  the  following :  — 

In  325,  the  first  General  Council  was  called  at  Nicsea 
to  determine  the  questions  which  arose  out  of  the  Arian 
strife.     In  opposition  to  Arius,  who,  while  calling  Christ 


RELIGION   AND   DOGMA.  223 

God,  had  yet  declared  him  not  begotten  out  of  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father,  but  created  by  the  Father,  the 
Council  of  Nicaea  pronounced  the  Son  consubstantial  and 
coeternal  with  the  Father;  but  propounded  no  doctrine 
as  to  the  relation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  God,  or  as  to 
the  exact  nature  of  Christ.  Next  came  the  Second  Gen- 
eral Council,  at  Constantinople,  in  381,  at  which,  in 
consequence  of  controversies  which  had  sprung  out  of 
the  decisions  at  Nicaea,  it  was  further  declared  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  coequal  with  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
But  still  one  important  and  very  troublesome  point  had 
been  left  undecided  by  both  Nicaea  and  Constantinople ; 
the  relation  between  the  human  and  divine  natures  in 
Christ  himself.  If  in  being  God,  Christ  ceased  to  be 
man,  that  is,  if  his  human  nature  was  lost  in  the  divine, 
then  it  was  the  Infinite  God  who  was  born,  suffered,  and 
died.  If  Christ  was  both  God  and  man,  then  were 
there  not  two  Christs?  After  another  century  of  angry 
controversy,  and  after  two  successive  councils,  in  one 
of  which  the  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  Christ  was  pro- 
nounced heresy  under  the  name  of  Nestorianism,  in 
the  other  of  which  the  doctrine  of  one  nature  in  Christ 
was  pronounced  heresy  under  the  name  of  Eutychian- 
ism,  it  was  finally  decided  at  the  Fourth  General  Council, 
at  Chalcedon,  in  451,  that  although  each  of  these  sepa- 
rate doctrines  is  false,  yet  both  are  true ;  in  other  words, 
that  Christ,  although  not  two  beings,  nor  yet  one,  is  both 
two  and  one  ;  that  he  has  two  natures  in  one  person. 
These  doctrines  concerning  Christ,  of  course,  although 


224  ORTHODOXY  AND    HERESY. 

the  most  important,  were  by  no  means  the  only  ones  in 
controversy  during  those  early  centuries.  On  the  con- 
trary, each  Christian  dogma  was  to  be  found  in  that 
period  in  the  process  of  formation.  Prominent  among 
these,  and  the  only  other  doctrine  to  which  I  called 
your  attention,  was  that  relating  to  human  nature.  As 
in  regard  to  the  nature  of  Christ  we  found,  in  the 
pages  of  the  early  Fathers,  the  most  varied  and  con- 
flicting views,  so  in  regard  to  the  nature  of  man.  That 
the  human  race  had  been  in  some  way  corrupted  by 
Adam's  fall,  was  generally  granted ;  but  how  it  was  cor- 
rupted, or  what  share,  if  any,  the  race  in  general  had 
in  Adam's  guilt,  was  left  undecided  until  the  fifth  cen- 
tury, when  the  whole  question  was  brought  to  an  issue 
by  the  monk  Pelagius,  who  declared,  as  most  of  the 
Fathers  had  done  before  him,  that  Adam's  sin  acted 
upon  the  race  only  as  a  bad  example,  and  that  every 
man  can  be  just  as  good  or  just  as  bad  as  he  chooses. 
Whether  this  doctrine,  even  then,  would  have  been 
pronounced  heresy,  is  more  than  doubtful,  had  it  not 
been  for  the  potent  influence,  just  at  this  juncture,  of 
Augustine,  whose  Manichaean  training  and  supreme  be- 
lief in  the  supernatural  efficacy  of  the  church,  led  him 
to  frame  out  of  Paul's  language,  and  out  of  the  old 
conceptions,  the  doctrine  of  man's  natural  depravity, 
and  entire  inability  to  escape  from  sin,  except  through 
God's  unmerited  grace,  working  through  the  miracu- 
lous agency  of  the  church.  In  the  year  418,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  Council  of  Carthage  adopted  the  Augus- 


RELIGION  AND   DOGMA.  225 

tinian  theory  of  Original  Sin,  Total  Depravity,  and  Free 
Grace,  and  pronounced  the  opposite  doctrines,  held  up 
to  that  time  by  most  of  the  prominent  Christian  teach- 
ers, heretical. 

From  these  single  instances  of  the  formation  of  Chris- 
tian doctrine,  we  learned  the  process  by  which  all 
Christian  doctrine  has  been  formed.  What  was  true  of 
these,  was  equally  true  of  every  other  dogma  which  Chris- 
tendom confesses.  No  single  dogma  being  found,  as 
such,  in  the  primitive  Scriptures,  each  one  in  turn  has 
waited  to  be  moulded  by  religious  controversy,  and  to 
receive  its  final  form  at  the  hands  of  an  ecclesiastical 
council.  Christian  doctrines  are  simply  the  various  decis- 
ions of  these  councils  called  from  time  to  time  to  declare 
which  of  two  conflicting  opinions,  held  by  different  church 
teachers,  was  right,  and  which  wrong. 

The  next  question,  therefore,  which  we  had  to  consider, 
was  this ;  what  were  these  councils  which,  by  a  mere  vote, 
determined  forever  the  faith  of  Christendom?  Councils, 
we  found,  were  simply  a  gathering  of  bishops  representing 
what  called  itself  the  Catholic  church.  Their  sole  au- 
thority lay  in  their  being  the  mouthpiece  of  the  church. 

The  question  was  pushed  still  further  back,  therefore. 
There  is  a  Catholic  church,  it  seems.  What  is  it? 
Whence  did  it  come?  When  begin  to  exist?  The 
decrees  of  Nicaea,  Constantinople,  Chalcedon,  Carthage, 
are  entitled  to  respect  only  as  this  Catholic  church 
can  prove  its  claim  to  authority  and  its  right  to  speak  for 
Christendom.     What,  then,  and  whence,  is  the  Catholic 

lS 


226  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

church  ?  Not  an  institution  founded  by  Jesus,  certainly, 
as  a  single  glance  at  the  Scriptures  proves  to  us.  Not 
part  of  primitive  Christianity,  therefore.  Not  founded  by 
the  Apostles  either;  there  were  churches  in  apostolic 
times,  but  no  church.  As  late  as  the  end  of  the  first 
century,  each  congregation  made  and  unmade  its  own 
officers,  and  bishops  as  distinct  from  elders  were  still 
unknown.  Hardly  before  the  third  century  did  we  find 
mention  of  "  the  one  only  baptism  of  the  one  church." 
Even  then  its  organization  was  not  complete,  and  many 
essential  features  were  lacking.  At  the  time  of  the  early 
councils,  no  one  bishop  was  supreme  above  the  rest. 
Not  until  the  fifth  century  did  the  bishop  of  Rome  claim 
precedence  among  his  fellows.  In  the  seventh  century 
the  bishop  of  Rome  and  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople 
were  still  contending  with  each  other  for  the  title  of 
universal  bishop.  Not  until  the  nineteenth  century  was 
there  an  infallible  head  of  the  infallible  church. 

The  church  came  gradually  into  being,  therefore.  It 
was  eighteen  hundred  and  seventy  years  in  reaching  its 
growth.  It  came  into  being  expressly  to  meet  the  demand 
for  infallibility.  The  Scriptures  themselves  admitting  of 
various  interpretations,  and  leaving  many  grave  questions 
in  doubt,  unity  of  faith  was  impossible  without  some 
infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture,  and  some  supreme 
authority  to  establish  the  articles  of  faith.  If  there  must 
be  doctrines,  there  must  be  something  to  sanction  doc- 
trines. Hence  the  church;  growing  constantly  more 
compact  as  necessity  required ;  assuming  step  by  step  a 


RELIGION   AND   DOGMA.  227 

larger  authority,  as  that  authority  was  needed.  If  it  can 
be  said,  as  it  certainly  may,  that  the  necessities  of  dogma 
created  the  church,  it  must  also  be  said  that  the  church 
alone  creates  and  sanctions  dogma. 

Doctrinal  Christianity,  therefore,  culminates  in  the  Cath- 
olic church.  Without  that  church,  as  we  have  seen, 
there  would  be  no  Christian  doctrines.  Doctrines  are  the 
voice  of  the  church.  The  two  cannot  be  separated. 
Insist  upon  having  doctrines,  and  you  must  have  the 
Catholic  church;  deny  the  authority  of  the  Catholic 
church,  and  you  remove  the  basis  of  all  doctrine.  You 
cannot  discriminate  between  the  two,  and  hold  to  the  one 
while  you  disown  the  other.  You  cannot  accept  the 
church  and  discard  its  doctrines ;  no  more  can  you 
retain  the  doctrines  while  you  renounce  the  church. 
Whatever  beliefs  you  retain  on  leaving  the  church  are 
simply  your  individual  opinions  ;  they  are  no  longer  estab- 
lished dogmas. 

This  is  a  point  which  the  Protestant  reformers  failed  to 
see.  They  thought  they  could  go  out  of  the  church, 
deny  the  authority  of  the  pope,  and  yet  retain  the  Trinity, 
Incarnation,  and  Atonement,  as  binding  doctrines.1  But 
this  could  not  be.  The  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  Incarna- 
tion, and  Atonement,  rest  on  precisely  the  same  authority 
as  does  the  doctrine  of  the  supremacy  of  the  pope ;  that 
is  upon  decrees  of  Catholic  councils.  To  renounce  the 
supremacy  of  the  pope,  therefore,  is  to  renounce  the 
authority  on  which  all  doctrines  rest,  and  by  which  alone 
1  Comp.  Confessio  Augustana,  Part  i.  art.  xxi. 


228  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

doctrinal  unity  is  possible.  To  leave  the  church  was  to 
leave  unity  of  faith  and  all  dogmatic  authority  behind. 
To  leave  the  church  and  carry  off  its  dogmas  with  them, 
was  at  best  to  rob  the  mansion  which  they  were  deserting. 

This  is  what  I  meant  by  saying,  in  one  of  my  lectures, 
that  Catholicism  and  Orthodoxy  are  synonymous  and  con- 
vertible terms.  It  is  literally  so.  There  can  be  Catholic 
orthodoxy  j  there  can  be,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  no 
Protestant  orthodoxy.  Protestantism  is  in  itself  the  de- 
nial of  the  one  authority  on  which  orthodoxy  is  based ;  is 
itself,  therefore,  the  negation  of  orthodoxy.  Protestant- 
ism may  amuse  itself,  if  it  chooses,  with  claiming  an 
orthodoxy  of  its  own ;  Protestant  sects  may  amuse  them- 
selves, if  amusement  it  be,  in  summoning  councils,  and 
chastising  rebellious  churches,  and  excommunicating  here- 
tics ;  but  it  is  an  idle  pastime,  which  deceives  no  one,  and 
carries  its  absurdity  on  its  face.  If  there  be  a  Protestant 
orthodoxy,  what  is  it?  If  there  be  a  Protestant  church, 
where  is  it?  I,  at  least,  know  of  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other.  I  know  of  no  creed  which  all  Protestantism  con- 
fesses, I  know  of  no  single  article  of  any  creed  which  all 
Protestant  bodies  accept ;  I  know  of  no  single  Protestant 
confession  which  all  who  receive  it  understand  in  the 
same  way. 

The  name  Protestant  Orthodoxy,  therefore,  is  a  com- 
plete misnomer ;  and  ought,  in  all  candor,  to  be  quietly 
laid  aside.  Protestantism  is  heresy.  Its  very  essence  is 
heresy.  It  is  rooted  in  heresy;  it  is  fed  by  heresy;  it 
bears  forever  the  fruits  of  heresy.     Its  very  function  is  to 


RELIGION  AND   DOGMA.  229 

initiate  heresy,  and  legitimate  it  as  the  lawful  outgrowth  of 
Christianity.  Protestantism  is  the  authority  of  the  indi- 
vidual soul  as  against  the  authority  of  the  church ;  and 
the  authority  of  the  soul  is  heresy.  Heresy  is  "  choice  ;  " 
the  soul  choosing  its  religious  belief,  and  holding  it  as  its 
own.  Behold  the  end  of  the  whole  matter ;  —  the  church 
against  the  soul ;  the  pope  against  human  nature ;  ortho- 
doxy against  heresy. 

All  Protestants,  then,  are  heretics.  If  they  are  called 
Servetus  or  Socinus,  they  are  heretics ;  if  they  are  called 
Luther  or  Calvin,  they  are  heretics  as  well.  If  they  deny 
Trinity,  Atonement,  and  Eternal  Punishment,  they  are 
heretics ;  if  they  accept  Trinity,  Atonement,  and  Eternal 
Punishment,  they  are  heretics  as  well ;  for  they  can  accept 
them  only  upon  the  authority  of  their  own  reason.  In 
speaking  of  the  several  parties  into  which  Protestantism  at 
once  and  inevitably  fell,  I  have  recognized  this  fact,  and 
classed  them  under  one  head,  as  so  many  dissenters  from 
the  orthodox  faith.  On  this  common  ground  all  Protes- 
tant bodies  stand  to-day  ;  the  only  essential  distinction 
between  them  being  that  while  some  frankly  accept,  others 
angrily  disown,  the  stigma  of  heresy. 

This  brings  clearly  before  us  the  one  remaining  ques- 
tion which,  as  I  have  said,  it  has  been  the  ulterior  purpose* 
of  the  present  course  to  meet.  What  is  the  relation 
between  Christianity  itself  and  Christian  doctrines?  As 
we  have  already  seen,  if  those  doctrines  are  an  essential 
part  of  our  faith,  if  orthodoxy  of  belief  is  a  necessary  part 
of  Christianity,  then  we  must  have  the  Catholic  church. 


230  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

Does  it  not  follow  then  that  Catholicism  is  right  and  Pro- 
testantism wrong? 

Certainly,  I  reply :  unless  we  are  prepared  for  the  other 
horn  of  the  dilemma.  Let  the  alternative  be  stated  as 
sharply  as  possible,  for  it  must  be  fairly  met.  Either 
Catholicism  is  right,  or  doctrine  is  not  essential  to  Chris- 
tianity. As  true  Protestants,  of  course,  our  choice  is  clear. 
We  hold  Protestantism  to  be  right ;  therefore  we  must 
conclude  that  doctrine  is  not  essential  to  Christianity. 
There  can  be  a  pure  and  true  Christian  faith  without 
Christian  doctrines ;  without  any  verbal  statements,  that  is, 
in  which  all  are  forced  to  unite.  I  urge  this  upon  you  as 
the  legitimate  teaching  of  the  Protestant  Reformation; 
Doctrine  is  not  an  essential  part  of  Christianity,  else  Ca- 
tholicism is  right  and  Protestantism  wrong. 

No  one  will  deny  that  there  is  a  difference  between 
religion  and  doctrine  ;  between  spiritual  truths  on  the  one 
side  and  mental  belief  on  the  other.  No  one  will  deny 
that  religion  in  its  purest  form  can  be  held  without  form- 
ulating any  system  of  belief.  Will  any  one  deny  that 
Christianity  is  such  a  religion?  No  one  pretends  that 
primitive  Christianity  contained  any  statement  of  belief. 
Christianity  was  content  to  be  a  religion,  without  attempt- 
ing to  become  a  belief.  The  Christian  Scriptures  pre- 
sented the  new  faith,  and  left  it,  in  the  form  in  which  it 
found  its  first  and  natural  utterance ;  in  the  words  and 
acts  and  lives  of  its  early  apostles.  Those  words  and  acts 
might  be  variously  understood,  variously  felt,  variously 
applied,  and  might  lead  to  the  utmost  diversity  of  thought 


RELIGION  AND   DOGMA.  23  I 

and  belief.  They  did  produce  that  diversity  among  the 
immediate  followers  of  Jesus  themselves.  No  more  vital 
difference  of  opinion  has  ever  separated  the  Christian 
world,  than  that  which  separated  Peter  from  Paul,  or 
Paul  from  James.  Yet  no  provision  was  made  against 
this,  nor  any  steps  taken  against  it.  The  primitive  Gos- 
pel was  left  to  do  its  legitimate  work ;  to  inspire  the  souls 
of  men  with  high  purpose  and  devout  aspiration  and  great 
longings,  and  lead  them  into  whatever  diversity  of  thought 
and  interpretation  it  might. 

No  one  can  deny  that  this  is  so ;  else,  why  is  it  that 
when  Christian  doctrines  are  formed,  they  are  not  given 
us  in  the  words  of  the  Scriptures  themselves  ?  Why  is  it 
that  Christian  doctrines  and  creeds  are  formed  at  all? 
The  putting  of  a  single  great  Christian  truth  into  a  doc- 
trine is  a  confession  that  the  Christian  Scriptures  contain 
no  doctrine.  The  simple  fact  that  no  single  creed,  either 
from  the  Catholic  or  from  the  Protestant  side,  has  ever 
been  drawn  bodily  from  the  Scriptures,  or  couched  exclu- 
sively in  Scripture  phrases,  is  conclusive  proof  that  doc- 
trine is  not  part  of,  and  therefore  not  essential  to,  pure 
Christianity.  Either  Christianity  was  defective  at  the  start, 
in  a  most  important  point,  or  doctrine  is  not  an  important 
part  of  it,  but  only  a  superfluous  addition. 

Christian  doctrine  is  a  superfluous  addition  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion.  It  was  an  afterthought.  When  the  early 
faith  began  to  bear  its  legitimate  fruits  in  variety  of 
thought  and  belief,  the  leaders  of  the  church  became 
alarmed.     The  unity  of  Christian  faith,  the  authority   of 


232  ORTHODOXY  AND   HERESY. 

the  church,  was  endangered.  That  the  soul  is  best  em- 
ployed when  it  is  following  its  own  convictions,  and  is 
safest  in  making  its  own  approaches  to  God,  they  could 
not  see.  They  only  felt  the  immediate  danger  to  outward 
unity.  Hence  the  specific  dogma,  officially  uttered,  which 
all  must  accept.  Hence  the  addition  to  the  original  faith, 
of  a  verbal  confession,  and  a  command  to  accept  it.  At 
first  a  single  doctrine  only,  to  meet  a  single  necessity,  it 
became  in  time  a  systematic  series  of  dogmas,  involving  a 
complete  extra-biblical  Scheme  of  Salvation.  At  first  the 
mere  vote  of  a  majority  of  bishops,  and  carrying  simply 
the  weight  of  numbers,  doctrine  has  become  at  last  the  'in- 
fallible utterance  of  a  divinely  commissioned  church. 

Such  was  the  origin  of  Christian  doctrine ;  an  origin 
entirely  outside  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  independent 
of  the  action  of  its  founders.  Christianity  itself  gives 
no  countenance  to  this  treatment  of  its  truths,  offers  no 
preparation  for  it,  supplies  no  material  for  it.  Christianity 
itself  places  every  possible  obstacle  in  the  way  of  such 
treatment.  Never  was  a  religious  faith  harder  to  formu- 
late ;  never  was  the  essence  of  a  religion  harder  to  catch 
and  hold ;  never  did  specific  statements  of  truth  stand  in 
greater  need  of  restatement ;  never  did  interpretations 
more  imperatively  demand  to  be  themselves  interpreted. 
Never  was  the  fine  spirit  of  a  lofty  message  more  rudely 
misconceived,  than  by  those  who  sought  to  imprison  the 
ethereal  truths  of  Christianity  in  the  soulless  phrases  of  a 
creed. 

And   the  endeavor  was  fruitless  after  all.     Brilliant  as 


RELIGION  AND   DOGMA.  233 

seemed  at  first  its  success,  the  hour  of  reckoning  came, 
and  the  pure  religion  vindicated  itself  against  all  its  per- 
versions and  corruptions.  The  outburst  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, and  the  instant  falling  asunder  of  Protestantism  into  a 
hundred  different  faiths,  meant  that  the  power  of  dogma 
is  transient,  and  that  there  is  no  permanent  religious 
authority  outside  the  soul.  For  the  wise  man  no  experi- 
ment need  be  twice  tried.  For  fifteen  hundred  years, 
the  Christian  world  tried  trie  experiment,  under  circum- 
stances the  most  favorable  possible,  of  turning  Christianity 
into  a  creed ;  of  distrusting  reason  and  providing  an  in- 
fallible authority  for  the  soul ;  of  erasing  all  theological 
differences,  and  effecting  unity  of  belief.  The  experiment 
failed  disastrously.  If  we  are  wise,  we  shall  accept  the 
failure  and  not  repeat  the  experiment.  If  we  are  wise, 
we  shall  accept  the  fact  and  acknowledge  its  full  signifi- 
cance. It  means  that  dogma  is  no  essential  part  of 
religion.  It  means,  not  that  this  doctrine  or  that  is  false, 
but  that  doctrine  as  such  carries  no  final  authority  for  the 
soul.  It  means  that  Christianity  is  really,  what  it  seemed 
two  thousand  years  ago,  not  a  verbal  system,  but  a  religion  ; 
and  that  if  it  be  true  religion,  it  must  necessarily  lead  us 
constantly  into  new  and  nobler  beliefs. 

To  this  conclusion,  therefore,  we  are  brought ;  a  con- 
clusion which  cannot  be  too  succinctly  or  too  simply 
stated.  The  future  of  Protestantism,  if  future  it  has,  must 
needs  be  one  of  increasing  intellectual  differences,  and 
constantly  multiplying  views  of  spiritual  things.  The  func- 
tion of  Protestantism,  if  function  it  has,  is,  once  for  all 


334  ORTHODOXY   AND    HERESY. 

and  with  pride,  to  accept  this  diversity  of  faith  as  its 
essential  characteristic  ;  to  forget  the  terms  orthodox  and 
heretic  j  to  devote  itself  henceforth  to  the  moral  elevation 
of  humanity,  and  to  growth  into  an  ever  larger  and  diviner 
truth. 

April  26,  1874. 


INDEX. 


Apocrypha,  its  personification  of 

divine  attributes,  33. 
Arius,  49. 

his  doctrine,  51. 
Arminianism,  210. 
Arminius,  210. 

his  religious  views,  212. 
Athanasius,  56. 

false  creed  of,  65,  82. 
Augsburg,  confession  of,  151. 
Augustine,  96. 

his  doctrine  of  human  nature, 
104. 

Barnabas,    his    connection    with 
Paul,  10. 

Calvin,  170. 

his  treatment  of  heretics,  175. 
Calvinism,  172. 

Catholicism,  equivalent  to  Ortho- 
doxy, 157,  228. 
Chalcedon,  Council  of,  79. 

creed  of,  80,  86. 
Christ  — 

idea  of,  among  Docetae,  41. 
Gnostics,  39. 
in  Clem.  Homilies,  38. 
first  three  Gospels,  22. 
Fourth  Gospel,  29,  34. 


Christ  — 

idea  of,  in  Irenaeus,  39. 

Justin  Martyr,  36. 
Paul  of  Samosata,  44. 
Paul's  Epistles,  24. 
Sabellius,  44. 
Tertullian,  40. 
two  conceptions  of  in  New  Tes- 
tament, 22. 
Church,  edict  of  Theodosius  con- 
cerning, 118. 
in  time  of  apostles,  5,  no. 

Augustine,  97,  117. 
Fathers,  112. 
its  origin,  109. 
significance,  126. 
Church,  only  one  possible,  128. 
Church,  Roman,  gradual  growth 

of,  119. 
Clementine  Homilies,  17,  ^8. 
Constantine,  as  head  of  Nicaean 

Council,  54. 
Councils,  Chalcedon,  79. 
Constantinople,  62,  65. 
Ephesus  (1st),  71. 
Ephesus  (2d),  75. 
Nicaea,  53. 
North  Africa,  103. 
Sirmium,  61. 
Cyprian,  on  the  Church,  115. 


236 


INDEX. 


DoCETiE,  41. 

Doctrine,  not  essential  to  Chris- 
tianity, 230. 
Donatist  Controversy,  116. 
Dort,  Synod  of,  213. 

Kbionites,  18. 
English  Church,  179. 

its  diversities  of  belief,  187. 
ritual,  182. 
theology,  183. 
Ephesus,  First  Council  of,  71. 

Second  Council  of,  75. 
Eutyches,  72- 

Gnostics,  39. 

Gospel,  Fourth,  view  of  Christ  in, 

29,  34- 
Gospels,  first  three,  view  of  Christ 

in,  22. 
Gregory  I.,  124. 

Holy  Spirit,  late  origin  of  doc- 
trine of,  63. 
Homoousios,  how  the  term  came 
into  Niczean  Creed,  57. 
its  ideal  meaning,  62. 
once  a  heretical  term,  60. 
Huss,  133. 

Incarnation,  doctrine  of,  69. 
Indulgences,  140. 
Iren^us,  39. 

on  Church,  113. 

on  human  nature,  92. 

Jerusalem,  Council  at,  11. 
Justification  by  Faith,  as  the 

basis  of  Protestantism,  147. 


Justification  by  Faith,  disputes 
concerning  it  among  Luther- 
ans, 153. 
Justin  Martyr,  36. 

his  doctrines  concerning  human 
nature,  92. 

Leo  I.,  78,  120. 

Lord's  Supper,  disputes  concern- 
ing it  in  Protestant  Church, 
154,  166. 
Luther,  138. 

against  the  peasants,  149. 
at  Worms,  146. 
dispute  with  Zwingli,  165. 
excommunication  of,  145. 
theses  against  indulgences,  142. 
Lutheran    Church,  its    confes- 
sions, 151. 
its  divisions,  153. 

Manichzeism,  no. 
Man,  nature  of,  87. 

Paul's  doctrine  of,  88. 

views  of  Fathers  concerning,  90." 
Melanchthon,  149,  151. 
Messiah,  as  presented  in  first  three 

Gospels,  23. 
Monophysite  Doctrines,  69,  84. 

Nature,   person,  substance ;  arbi- 
trary distinction  between,  83. 
Natures,    two  ;    controversy   con- 
cerning, 68. 
Nestorian  Controversy,  70. 
Nestorius,  70. 
NIC.EA,  Council  of,  53. 
NiCiEAN  Creed,  59. 
its  character,  63. 


INDEX. 


237 


Origen,  45. 

his  views  of  Church,  115,  120. 
Fall,  91. 
Trinity,  45. 
Orthodoxy,  equivalent  to  Catholi- 
cism, 157,  228. 
only  one  possible,  128. 

Papacy,  development  of,  121. 
Paul,  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem, 
12. 
character  of  his  conversion,  9. 
his  view  of  Christ,  24. 
parties  against  him,  15. 
Paul  of  Samosata,  44. 
Pelagian  Controversy,  94. 
Pelagius,  94. 

his  condemnation,  103. 
doctrine,  94. 
Persecution,  by  Lutheran  Church, 
156. 
Protestant  theory  of,  195. 
Person,   nature,    substance  ;    arbi- 
trary distinction  between,  83. 
Philo,  his  doctrine  of  the  Word,  30. 
Priestley,  215. 

Protestant    Church,  non-exist- 
ence of,  160. 
Protestantism,  equivalent  to  her- 
esy, 157,  191;  228. 
its  first  doctrinal  symbol,  151. 

Racovian  Catechism,  207. 
Reformation,  beginnings  of,  140, 

163. 
in  England,  179. 

Italy,  203. 

Switzerland,  163. 


Reformation,  moral  character  of 
age  preceding,  136. 
precursors  of,  132. 
Reformed  Church,  175. 
Robber  Council,  75. 

Sabellius,  his  doctrine  of  Trinity, 

44. 
Savonarola,  134. 
Servetus,  175,  196. 

his  religious  philosophy,  199. 
Socinus,  Faustus,  205. 

his  religious  system,  206. 

Laelius,  204. 
Spirit,   Holy,   late  origin  of  the 

doctrine,  63. 
Stephen,  cause  of  his  martyrdom,  8. 
Synergism,  153. 

Tertullian,  40. 
on  Church,  115. 

human  nature,  90,  92. 
Trinity,  42. 
Theodosius,  edict  of,  65,  118. 
Theophilus  of  Antioch,  38. 
Trinity,   arbitrary   distinctions   of 
its  terms,  83. 
as  held  by  Origen,  45. 
Sabellius,  44. 
Tertullian,  42. 
first  mention  of,  42. 
gradual  formation  of,  65. 
not  in  Nicaean  Creed,  59. 

Unitarianism,  as  held  by  Serve^ 
tus,  199. 
as  held  by  Socinus,  206. 
in  America,  217. 


238 


INDEX. 


Unitarianism,  in  England,  214. 
Italy,  203. 
its  early  appearance,  193. 

Word,  as  God,  30,  35: 
in  Apocrypha,  33. 
Fourth  Gospel,  34. 


Word,  in  Greek  Philosophy,  31. 

Philo's  doctrine  of,  30. 

Zoroastrian  doctrine  of,  30. 
Wycliffe,  132. 

ZwiNGLI,  163,  I96. 

his  relations  with  Luther,  165. 


^>   OP  THE      °>^ 

:UIITBRSIT 


University  Press  :  John  Wilson  &  Son,  Cambridge. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 
LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


29Nov*bWlX 


rEcdTO 


^v 


=r-t& 


&  \<si\ 


NOV  37  ft°' 


■^pr 


*5$& 


RECD  CD 


NOV    81962 


JAN2-^6l 


REC'D 


:1EC?3'R5-RM 


LOAN  DEPT. 


SECT  10   UW^..-»»00 


LD  21A-50m-8.'57 
(C8481sl0)476B 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LIBRARY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


"3  28I7C 


LIBRARY  USE 


DEC  4~  65 


RECDl 


OEU-'GS-lOftM 


tOftN"&EPT; 


LD  62A-50m-2,'64 
(E3494sl0)9412A 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


